Transformers: ROTF User Review Thread

[BlackLantern]

Hell yeah !! As expensive as it is to go to the movies these days, Bay should not only ride my D--K, but suck it too ( Wait, that sounds a little gay don't it ?)

BTW, I hate Beast Wars, Armada, Energon, and Animated.

so are you now indicating that G1 is the sole source material from which all things Transformers should be derived from and damn any other intrepretation??

[Mr. Earle]

so are you now indicating that G1 is the sole source material from which all things Transformers should be derived from and damn any other intrepretation??
He probably means thats the only one he likes.

[BlackLantern]

He probably means thats the only one he likes.

which, with most people, means he thinks that's the only one that matters

[Nathan]

The G1 hard on most people have needs to stop. I loved the cartoon, but I can still see how terribly cheesy and corny some of the stuff was. I'm glad that we've got many different Transformers cartoons, because every cartoon brings something new to the table. Good things, as well as bad things.

And while I want that the Movies take a lot from G1, I don't mind if they also pick stories and characters from the other cartoons.

[SUPER SAIYAN D]

which, with most people, means he thinks that's the only one that matters

Once again, Black Lantern it is my OPINION that G1 is the one true Transformers, and yes the my favorite version.

[Theweepeople]

There is so much more to Transformers then just G1. If anything, G1 gave a giant **** you to the G1 fans when they killed off almost everyone in the 86 film just so they can sell toys.

G1 and Beast Wars are the only Transformers cartoons I care about. All the other ones that came after(Beast Machines, Robots in Disguise, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, and Animated) are crap.

I'm probably one of the few G1 fans that think the original film sucked. I actually like heavy metal and thought most of the music was lame and distracting. The only music I liked were the instrumental songs(Autobot city battle, Primes death, and Unicron's theme). Sadly the music is only a minor complaint of the film. My major complaints are the lack of classic G1 autobots, the annoying new autobots(Wheelie, Wreck Gar, and Blur being introduced), a poor introduction to the other new autobots(Kup, Arcee, Springer, Hot Rod, and Ultra Magnus), Unicron's lack of origin(where did he come from?!!!!), hearing Daniel speak, and some annoying plotholes.



The following review pretty much somes up everything that was wrong with the 1986 film.

http://builtstlouis.net/tf/manic/s-movie.html

[BlackLantern]

Once again, Black Lantern it is my OPINION that G1 is the one true Transformers, and yes the my favorite version.

then all you're guilty of is a lack of perspective....but that's nothing new around these parts

[SUPER SAIYAN D]

then all you're guilty of is a lack of perspective....but that's nothing new around these parts

*sigh* If u say so dude. I swear, being on SHH is like being in a room full of Jerry's kids.

[Theweepeople]

then all you're guilty of is a lack of perspective....but that's nothing new around these parts

He isn't guilty of anything if G1 is the only cartoon he enjoyed. This has nothing to do with perspective. It has everything to do with personal taste. I like G1 and Beast Wars because those are the only cartoons I've enjoyed.

[BlackLantern]

I tried watching Beast Wars and then about season 3 it got weird, they all looked different and lots of switching sides

[Lunar_Wolf]

G1 and Beast Wars are the only Transformers cartoons I care about. All the other ones that came after(Beast Machines, Robots in Disguise, Armada, Energon, Cybertron, and Animated) are crap.

I'm probably one of the few G1 fans that think the original film sucked. I actually like heavy metal and thought most of the music was lame and distracting. The only music I liked were the instrumental songs(Autobot city battle, Primes death, and Unicron's theme). Sadly the music is only a minor complaint of the film. My major complaints are the lack of classic G1 autobots, the annoying new autobots(Wheelie, Wreck Gar, and Blur being introduced), a poor introduction to the other new autobots(Kup, Arcee, Springer, Hot Rod, and Ultra Magnus), Unicron's lack of origin(where did he come from?!!!!), hearing Daniel speak, and some annoying plotholes.



The following review pretty much somes up everything that was wrong with the 1986 film.

http://builtstlouis.net/tf/manic/s-movie.html
There is a lot wrong with the 86 film, but damn I still love it.

[DarknessOfDeath]

Why is Optimus Prime a Gorilla? :(

[BlackLantern]

There is a lot wrong with the 86 film, but damn I still love it.

both the Transfomers and GI Joe animated films eschewed their established characters to try and push new ones

[Lunar_Wolf]

Why is Optimus Prime a Gorilla? :(

Transformers crashed on Earth and they scanned animals because cars, planes etc did not exist.

[Nathan]

The main reason was that they needed organic forms, because the raw energon located on the planet would've otherwise fried their circuits.

[Mr. Earle]

Btw does anybody know what Prime says right after he jumps off Grindor whose head he just tore in half? He whispers something...

[dark_b]

gorilla OP was badass.

i love beast warsl

[The Lizard]

Why is Optimus Prime a Gorilla? :(

Truk, not munky !!!1 :cmad:

[DarknessOfDeath]

+I watched the first episode of Beast Wars and it weirded me out. I guess I am not used to that version of Transformers.

I prefer the autobots transforming into cars and s***. Bumblebee is my fave :heart: next to Optimus Prime.

[Mr. Earle]

+I watched the first episode of Beast Wars and it weirded me out. I guess I am not used to that version of Transformers.

I prefer the autobots transforming into cars and s***. Bumblebee is my fave :heart: next to Optimus Prime.The first few episodes are a bit childish but then it gets a lot better. They transformed into animals because of the huge energon resources on the planet that would fry their circuits if they were left exposed for too long. These robots are also smaller than the G1 robots (and thats why they can turn into animals), supposedly because that way they are more energy efficient in the energon starved future. They are descendants of the Autobots and the Decepticons.

The later transmetal designs were freaking ugly and nonsensical and IMHO were done just to sell more toys.

To show you how good the show gets i will reveal some spoilers. You can choose not to read them of course:
The planet they are on was built by an omnipotent alien race. They created organic life and left it to grow as an experiment. Also, the planet has two moons. One is revealed to be a mechanical one that opens up and becomes a huge cannon, which in case the experiment goes bad would be used to cleanse the planet. Of course the aliens are infuriated by those stupid robots blowing **** up so they activate the cannon which Optimus Primal blows up, though at a cost of his life (he returns later on, so dont worry). So the planet is left with one moon... See were this is going?

Yes, its earth! In prehistoric times. Although the robots are descendats of the G1 ones, they somehow traveled through space and time and found themselves on prehistoric earth, where the Ark and the Nemesis are entombed and the G1 robots are in stasis. The next 10 episodes are about the Maximals protecting the Ark from the Predacons who want to end the Great War at its beginning, by killing Optimus Prime so that Megatron can prevail when he wakes up!

Isnt that cool or what?

[The Chris]

Btw does anybody know what Prime says right after he jumps off Grindor whose head he just tore in half? He whispers something...

Piece of tin I think.

[Balthus Dire]

+I watched the first episode of Beast Wars and it weirded me out. I guess I am not used to that version of Transformers.

I prefer the autobots transforming into cars and s***. Bumblebee is my fave :heart: next to Optimus Prime.

The first season isn't that great, but by season 3 the show is amazing. Seriously you should give it a chance. It starts off kind of kiddy but as the seasons progress there's amazing character development and all sorts of twists and turns. By the end of the show when they start killing off characters you actually care when they die because it's very well written.

Seriously it's great.

[Mr. Earle]

Piece of tin I think.
Thanks man. I didnt catch it when i saw the movie. I was expecting something more badass... But its ok!

[The Guard]

It is there in skeletal form, and in that shape it might as well not have been there at all. The story for this film would have been about the same if it had been a power point presentation with slides saying "Sam has to find his place!" and "Sam sets out to find the Matrix of Leadership!" between videos of the action sequences.

I disagree. I think you're simplifying it to make your point. And I get where you're coming from, but while there's not a lot here, there's a lot more than "skeleton" here. It would be like me saying that because Bruce and Rachel's "love scenes" only last a few minutes each, and there are only a few of them, that there's no love story, or point to the love story in THE DARK KNIGHT.

The distinction seems irrelevant. I already told you that I am not capable of dispensing premises upon the insertion of a quarter, even if the premise was my problem.

Then it seems irrelevant, I guess. It's not, though. Asking for suggestions about what would be better isn't me demanding anyone to better this material. And again, I'm not just talking about you, Saint. Surely an entire cadre of Transformers fans, many of them die-hards, could/would/should have some idea what they would like to see beyond "Sam Witwicky and The Matrix of Leadership", right?

Does Batman killing Two-Face work in context? This isn't a trap; I want to know.

I don't think it's neccessary for the end result they wanted, which is Dent being out of the picture, Gotham feeling hopeless, and Batman on the run. I think it does a disservice to the mythos a bit.

But does it work? Yes. It serves as the logical, realistic conclusion to his "I won't kill" arc in THE DARK KNIGHT. The reality of the situation is, he probably couldn't avoid doing so, and not see innocents suffer.

Now, I prefer a Batman who, morality notwithstanding, may actually be flawed in the sense that he doesn't realize how much his inability to kill potentially harms Gotham.

But yes, it works.

The G1 hard on most people have needs to stop. I loved the cartoon, but I can still see how terribly cheesy and corny some of the stuff was. I'm glad that we've got many different Transformers cartoons, because every cartoon brings something new to the table. Good things, as well as bad things.

I love that these movies have incorporated elements of G1, both comics and the cartoons, Beast Wars, and a number of other versions of the mythos.

What I never understood about dinobots...

How is it that normal Transformers pretty much resemble cars, but dinobots just look like robot versions of dinosaurs? Is it because they're machines, and they have to scan metal stuff?

[Mr. Para-Normal]

I was talking with a friend yesterday who had just saw the movie and he liked it despite the flaws. As we were talking he brought up some valid points about people whinning and complaining about the film and the humor. First the humor that is in this movie is also in Movies like 40 year old virgin, Superbad, etc. People love The Hangover but it has a guy in a man thong in the first 5-10 mintues the movie and FULL male nudity later on the naked Asian guy in the trunk of the car. Even Family guy has immature and sometimes in bad taste jokes on the show as well. But this movie has that kind of humor in and all of a sudden its a crime and awful etc. Well you should hate all the movies and show that I mentioned above. I know the haters will come with bs saying that this is a action movie or whatever but still the humor is the same as some other movies. ( I like the family guy and the movies that was listed FYI).

Second the general public seems to love these movies because FIRST and Foremost they are meant to entertain NOT to be taken SUPER SERIOUS like you haters would like it to be. The general public does not see this movies solely for a story they see them to be entertained and to watch Robots fight each other. Its kind of like people who saw the new friday the 13th movie they just wanted to see people get killed. That movie had a paper thin story and was top at the box office. Sure this movie had plot holes but NO movie is perfect. Even the Dark Knight had plotholes and things that were not really nesscary. Example Gordon says Two- Face killed 5 people but they NEVER show or mention WHO those 5 people were. We only see Two- Face kill 2 maybe 3 people (We dont know if Maroni survived the car crash). Also the Hong kong scenes while cool were not really nesscary to the overall story. Lou was just a minor character, Also the the Resse arch with him finding out that Bruce was batman really could have been cut they could have waited and used that story arch for the 3rd movie. I also would have liked to have know a little bit of the Jokers background/ Origins we get two different stories from the joker but who knows which is the truth lol. ( And yea I know its from the killing joke graphic novel).

So you see any movie can be nitpicked and analyzed if you WANT to look for things to complain and whine about. The Transformers movies may be chessy and have flaws with the story but I enjoyed it and so did LOTS of other people as well. 200 million at the box office is very strong and it shows that people didnt care what the critics said about the movie ( The movie got HUGE applause at both sold out showings that I went to over the weekend). The movie dosent take its self seriously it should be obvious by the humor it meant to ENTERTAIN people!! Haters lighten up not every movie has to be like a oscar contender or a dark knight to be good. End Rant!!

[Dark Knight]

Some (especially Bay fans) are content with the way Bay targets the lowest common denominator of the general movie audiences intelligence in his films.

Others are just completely insulted by what he does and are not fooled.

[SsM]

I was talking with a friend yesterday who had just saw the movie and he liked it despite the flaws. As we were talking he brought up some valid points about people whinning and complaining about the film and the humor. First the humor that is in this movie is also in Movies like 40 year old virgin, Superbad, etc. People love The Hangover but it as a guy in a man thong it the first 5 mintues or so of the movie and FULL male nudity later on the naked Asian guy in the trunk of the car. Even Family guy has immature and sometimes in bad taste jokes on the show as well. But this movie has that kind of humor in and all of a sudden its a crime and awful etc. Well you should hate all the movies and show that I mention above. I know the haters will come with bs saying that this is a action movie or whatever but still the humor is the same as some other movies. ( I like the family guy and the movies that was listed FYI).

Second the general public seems to love these movies because FIRST and Foremost they are meant to entertain NOT to be taken SUPER SERIOUS like you haters would anyalze every aspect of it. The general public does not see this movies solely for a story they see them to be entertained and to watch Robots fight each other. Its kind of like people who saw the new friday the 13th movie they just wanted to see people get killed. That movie had a paper thin story and was top at the box office. Sure this movie had plot holes but NO movie is perfect. Even the Dark Knight had plotholes and things that were not really nesscary. Example Gordon says Two- Face killed 5 people but they NEVER show or mention WHO those 5 people were. We only see Two- Face kill 2 maybe 3 people (We dont know if Maroni survived the car crash). Also the Hong kong scenes while cool were not really nesscary to the overall story. Lou was just a minor character, Also the the Resse arch with him finding out that Bruce was batman really could have been cut they could have waited and used that story arch for the 3rd movie. I also would have liked to have know a little bit of the Jokers background/ Origins we get two different stories from the joker but who knows which is the truth lol. ( And yea I know its from the killing joke graphic novel).

So you see any movie can be nitpicked and analyzed if you WANT to look for things to complain and whine about. The Transformers movies may be chessy and have flaws with the story but I enjoyed it and so did LOTS of other people as well. 200 million at the box office is very strong and it shows that people didnt care what the critics said about the movie ( The movie got HUGE applause at both sold out showings that I went to over the weekend). The movie dosent take its self seriously it should be obvious by the humor it meant to ENTERTAIN people!! Haters lighten up not every movie has to be like a oscar contender or a dark knight to be good. End Rant!!



This argument isn't valid at all, all of these were marketed as DIRTY COMEDIES.

If The Hangover was marketed as a big summer action movie, I would have been pretty pissed with what I got.

[Dark Knight]

Well I'll be seeing Public Enemies and taking my nephews to see Ice Age 3 before I see Transformers 2 again in the theater thats for damn sure.

[BlackLantern]

Some (especially Bay fans) are content with the way Bay targets the lowest common denominator of the general movie audiences intelligence in his films.

Others are just completely insulted by what he does and are not fooled.

...but I would only accept that from Michael Bay....if Michael Mann or Coppola was directing Transformers and made the exact same film, I'd be so pissed

as the internet and information gets out there, we all of a sudden care about who's directing this or who's writing that and some people like to use that to damn a film before during and after its release...I find it a bit unfair sometimes but that is how it is

[Godman]

He scanned a Military F-22, not some stunt plane. Military Jets aren't very colorful.

And what's with all the Soundwave ****ing in here? So he doesn't sound exactly like the G1 version. Big whoop. I thought it actually sounded better.


Soundwave was just underused and undeveloped like the rest of the title characters, the TRANSFORMERS.

Ur correct about the colors not being bright reds etc so why not a shade of green and tan? Just something TOTALLY different from Megatron. The designs are diff but not as unique as Optimus vs Bumble bee

[Mr. Para-Normal]

This argument isn't valid at all, all of these were marketed as DIRTY COMEDIES.

If The Hangover was marketed as a big summer action movie, I would have been pretty pissed with what I got.

I know but just because this marketed as a action movie it can't have comedy? There is a Action/Comedy genre like Rush Hour. The movie used the same kind of jokes that the other comedies used and people liked it so its a problem here because its an action movie?

[Blackman]

I know but just because this marketed as a action movie it can't have comedy? There is a Action/Comedy genre like Rush Hour. The movie used the same kind of jokes that the other comedies used and people liked it so its a problem here because its an action movie?
no because it wasnt funny.

Im all for raunchy humor as long as its funny where in ROTF IMO it was not

[Episode29]

I know but just because this marketed as a action movie it can't have comedy? There is a Action/Comedy genre like Rush Hour. The movie used the same kind of jokes that the other comedies used and people liked it so its a problem here because its an action movie?

There's probably a better horse to strap your wagon to than the Rush Hour films...

[SsM]

I know but just because this marketed as a action movie it can't have comedy? There is a Action/Comedy genre like Rush Hour. The movie used the same kind of jokes that the other comedies used and people liked it so its a problem here because its an action movie?


Yeah, I understand but the movies you quoted (with the exception of FG) are all R rated, dirty comedies with NO action.

TF doesn't need that much comedy.

[BlackLantern]

There's probably a better horse to strap your wagon to than the Rush Hour films...

agreed...I wouldn't use the Rush Hour films as an argument for or against anything

[Godman]

I know but just because this marketed as a action movie it can't have comedy? There is a Action/Comedy genre like Rush Hour. The movie used the same kind of jokes that the other comedies used and people liked it so its a problem here because its an action movie?

was there ever a full 5 mins of serious moments in Transformers without some kind of humerous aspect to the dialogue or scene? The Matrix had Humor and so did The Dark Knight, but u wouldn't call them action comedies and neither should transformers b. Transformers should have had more of Bay's The Island feel where it's a serious enough tone with a few chuckles. Not a comedy that has action like Rush Hour. When I watched the cartoons I never got a feel of Rush Hour AT ALL. These are supposed to be seriously toned WAR based themes more on the lines of The Matrix, Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings Indiana Jones which is full of humor but never strays from the concept behind his explorations with depth.

Even Harry Potter takes it's self more serious than Transformers 2

[Dark Knight]

...but I would only accept that from Michael Bay....if Michael Mann or Coppola was directing Transformers and made the exact same film, I'd be so pissed

as the internet and information gets out there, we all of a sudden care about who's directing this or who's writing that and some people like to use that to damn a film before during and after its release...I find it a bit unfair sometimes but that is how it is





Hmm....or we can say that yeah, Michael Bay knows what the "general movie going public wants to see" and made a Transformers film that attracts that audience.....so does that mean Michael Bay knows his audience are naive and like to see a stupid lame stuff in his films?

[Episode29]

Harry Potter takes it's self more serious than Transformers 2

Heck, Crank: High Voltage practically takes itself more seriously than Transformers...

[Mr. Para-Normal]

no because it wasnt funny.

Im all for raunchy humor as long as its funny where in ROTF IMO it was not

I like movies like 40 year old virgin, Superbad etc but some of the jokes in those movies were not funny or didnt work in my opinion. Like the jokes in the hangover with alan in a man thong and the naked guy in the trunk of the car pieces were not funny in my opinion. And the guy in American pie sticking his penis in a pie was cringe worthy in my opinion.

[Episode29]

And the guy in American pie sticking his penis in a pie was cringe worthy in my opinion.

Too close to home, huh...

[Blackman]

Too close to home, huh...
:lmao:

[BlackLantern]

Hmm....or we can say that yeah, Michael Bay knows what the "general movie going public wants to see" and made a Transformers film that attracts that audience.....so does that mean Michael Bay knows his audience are naive and like to see a stupid lame stuff in his films?

either or?? I know that BO really doesn't reflect the quality of a film...but the first one grossed about 720 mil and this one has scored over 200 mil already....Bay probably sees it as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and Im sure Paramount and Dreamworks feel the same way

on a side note....if no one here has not seen either Frost/Nixon or Good Night and Good Luck, you are missing out

[SsM]

Good night and Good luck is one of my favorites. Haven't had a chance to catch Frost/Nixon

[BlackLantern]

And the guy in American pie sticking his penis in a pie was cringe worthy in my opinion.

Too close to home, huh...

damn....I watched an interview with Jason Biggs and he talked about that scene and how he didn't want to do it at all and his agent told him "You **** that pie, you **** the **** out of that pie" I can't be mad at that

[Mr. Para-Normal]

lol nope it was more like what??? why would anybody do something that stupid. Rush hour was something that poped in my mind it was one of the first movies that I saw that was marketed as a action comedy movie. The 3rd one was AWFUL though.

[BlackLantern]

Good night and Good luck is one of my favorites. Haven't had a chance to catch Frost/Nixon

Good Night and Good Luck is a near perfect film IMO....cast is great, David Straitharn(sp?) blows it out of the water, I can't say enough good things about it

[SsM]

lol nope it was more like what??? why would anybody do something that stupid. Rush hour was something that poped in my mind it was one of the first movies that I saw that was marketed as a action comedy movie. The 3rd one was AWFUL though.


TF isn't marketed as an action/comedy. It is marketed as a full blown ACTION movie with bit comedic parts.

[Blackman]

I liked all the Rush Hour movies...The 2nd was the best

[Mr. Para-Normal]

All I am saying is the humor is immature and chessy but hey some people like it. In both showings of the movie I saw the audience burst out laughing at every joke. I am not saying a laughed at everyone but sometimes its fun to let go and relax and laugh at immature jokes lol.

[SsM]

All I am saying is the humor is immature and chessy but hey some people like it. In both showings of the movie I saw the audience burst out laughing at every joke. I am not saying a laughed at everyone but sometimes its fun to let go and relax and laugh at immature jokes lol.


I understand your point but you seem to be missing mine, If I want to relax and laugh, I'm going to a COMEDY, not an ACTION movie.

[The Guard]

Why not both on some level.

A common trick of film is that comedy or lighthearted moments are often used to alleviate tension (I've never understood why this is particularly neccessary, save for people's sensitivities at a fictional event). This is an incredibly tense, loud and fast movie. Is there a perfect balance of humor and tension? No, but there is something at work here. They didn't just put comedy into the movie for the hell of it in most places.

[Colossal Spoons]

Exactly. I'm a huge fan of that "Stiffler" comedy but it had no place in a TF movie, IMO. The jokes in the 1st movie were perfect.

[Blackman]

Exactly. I'm a huge fan of that "Stiffler" comedy but it had no place in a TF movie, IMO. The jokes in the 1st movie were perfect.
co sign

[BlackLantern]

Why not both on some level.

A common trick of film is that comedy or lighthearted moments are often used to alleviate tension (I've never understood why this is particularly neccessary, save for people's sensitivities at a fictional event). This is an incredibly tense, loud and fast movie. Is there a perfect balance of humor and tension? No, but there is something at work here. They didn't just put comedy into the movie for the hell of it in most places.

It's because you're such an intense guy:oldrazz:

[The Guard]

No, I'm serious, though. Can audiences like, not handle the intensity of fictional events?

[SsM]

Exactly. I'm a huge fan of that "Stiffler" comedy but it had no place in a TF movie, IMO. The jokes in the 1st movie were perfect.


I agree. They had something pretty decent going on in the first one but decided to blow it out of proportion.

[Primal Slayer]

Why were there so many Decepitcons and so few Autobots? And it was weird that the Autobots couldnt do half the things the Dcons could.

[Saint]

I disagree. I think you're simplifying it to make your point. And I get where you're coming from, but while there's not a lot here, there's a lot more than "skeleton" here. It would be like me saying that because Bruce and Rachel's "love scenes" only last a few minutes each, and there are only a few of them, that there's no love story, or point to the love story in THE DARK KNIGHT.
I don't agree that the situations are comparable. The distinction is that though the actual romance is scarce, it drives at least part of the films. Besides the Macguffin, very little drives Transformers.

And, of course I was simplifying, but you understand the point.

Surely an entire cadre of Transformers fans, many of them die-hards, could/would/should have some idea what they would like to see beyond "Sam Witwicky and The Matrix of Leadership", right?
I don't know. That's not my qualm.

I don't think it's neccessary for the end result they wanted, which is Dent being out of the picture, Gotham feeling hopeless, and Batman on the run. I think it does a disservice to the mythos a bit.

But does it work? Yes. It serves as the logical, realistic conclusion to his "I won't kill" arc in THE DARK KNIGHT. The reality of the situation is, he probably couldn't avoid doing so, and not see innocents suffer.

Now, I prefer a Batman who, morality notwithstanding, may actually be flawed in the sense that he doesn't realize how much his inability to kill potentially harms Gotham.

But yes, it works.
We largely agree.

[BlackLantern]

No, I'm serious, though. Can audiences like, not handle the intensity of fictional events?

well I see it as movies are supposed to be an all encompassing experiences, well at least the good ones, and in some cases you do get movies that are super intense all the way through....and some don't call for that....I don't think a movie about giant robots calls for wall to wall intensity

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Saw this again, yesterday, thought it was still amazing, going to see it again tonight.

[BlackLantern]

Why were there so many Decepitcons and so few Autobots? And it was weird that the Autobots couldnt do half the things the Dcons could.

I liked it...even in the cartoons the Autobots were always outnumbered....its that whole "fighting against the odds" type thing

[GhostPoet]

I liked it...even in the cartoons the Autobots were always outnumbered....its that whole "fighting against the odds" type thing

Only in this movie...the autobots are apparently completely worthless for the most part and need the humans to survive.

[Humphrey Bogart]

damn....I watched an interview with Jason Biggs and he talked about that scene and how he didn't want to do it at all and his agent told him "You **** that pie, you **** the **** out of that pie" I can't be mad at that

That is hilarious...

[BlackLantern]

I seem to remember the few episodes I saw of Beast Wars and even Armada that there were always more Decepticons than Autobots

[SsM]

I seem to remember the few episodes I saw of Beast Wars and even Armada that there were always more Decepticons than Autobots


Armada started out with like three Autobots, every time they would get a new autobot, the decepticons seemed to get two new soldiers.

[The Guard]

I don't agree that the situations are comparable. The distinction is that though the actual romance is scarce, it drives at least part of the films. Besides the Macguffin, very little drives Transformers. And, of course I was simplifying, but you understand the point.

Yes, I understand your point. But there are different kinds of stories. Some stories have the main characters mostly reacting to things, and some have characters actually doing things to drive the story forward, and in some, there's a combination of elements. I think this is the latter. In this story, the characters do things based on a discovery, and then, in the course of them doing things, they discover more things that they must react to and make decisions about that inform their next actions. The basic stories of REVENGE OF THE FALLEN is Sam's quest to discover his role in the Transformers struggle, and the Decepticon's revenge (Mikaela's bit is in there, as is the government stuff, and there's a small subplot with Sam's parents, which is mostly tied to Sam's "leaving home and growing into his role" element). And there are very clear "drives" to both stories. Sam drives his own story for the most part (although he doesn't get to choose his route) as do Megatron and the Decepticons. The main issue I have with it is that everything is painted in broad strokes, so the story ends up feeilng a bit haphazard. Which it almost had to, or it would feel even more contrived.

What do you mean by there being nothing that drives the story? There are several elements that do. Do you mean they never crystallize a reason for Sam to doubt himself and his role in the struggle early on, therefore it sort of comes out of nowhere?

I think there's a decent balance of Sam's actions driving the story, though, him reacting to changing story elements, and moving forward through the story. It's the pieces of the story that are the problem. The shard imprinting itself on Sam's mind isn't a terrible idea, if an over the top one. Most of the story unfolds fairly logically, until The Tomb of the Primes which is just, it feels like the writers ran out of ideas and needed a roadblock to give the characters. Even that scene, though, has some value, in the crumbling Matrix and Sam's rededication to his quest. And after that, random or not (which makes it a bit more realistic, I think), obstacles feel fairly genuine, given the story that's been built around them.

I don't know. That's not my qualm.

I know. I keep hoping someone else will chime in. People scream foul, but then when you ask "What would be better in terms of the actual storyline", there's nary a peep.

[GhostPoet]

I could write a better story. No really...I could.

[CEREBRAL....]

Some (especially Bay fans) are content with the way Bay targets the lowest common denominator of the general movie audiences intelligence in his films.

Others are just completely insulted by what he does and are not fooled.


well said....:applaud

[CEREBRAL....]

I could write a better story. No really...I could.


be easy..bay's fans will hold you to it..

[BlackLantern]

Im sure if you let a hardest of the hardcore Transformers fan write a film, you'd probably have 50 people that actually got it, the other 96 percent of the movie viewing public would go see 'The Hangover' again

[GhostPoet]

be easy..bay's fans will hold you to it..

I wish...believe me. :) I tried to get into the industry writing screenplays, but it's next to impossible. It's more about who you know and not so much the quality of your work in many ways.

[Blackman]

Im sure if you let a hardest of the hardcore Transformers fan write a film, you'd probably have 50 people that actually got it, the other 96 percent of the movie viewing public would go see 'The Hangover' again
Thats exactly what would happen

Anytime you make something on a previous based material you need to make it so that nonfans of the series, book, comic, etc. can enjoy it as well.

[BlackLantern]

I wish...believe me. :) I tried to get into the industry writing screenplays, but it's next to impossible. It's more about who you know and not so much the quality of your work in many ways.

That's most any industry in Hollywood....my cousin works as a lighting tech at NBC/Universal....he got the job because his fiance is best friends with one of the union heads assistants

[GhostPoet]

Im sure if you let a hardest of the hardcore Transformers fan write a film, you'd probably have 50 people that actually got it, the other 96 percent of the movie viewing public would go see 'The Hangover' again

Agreed.
I think there has to be a balance...and it would be really easy to please MOST fans by keeping it as close to G1 as possible, while still maintaining a level jump on point for people who don't even know what an autobot is.

I still think Iron Man is one of the greatest examples of how to bring either a cartoon or a comic to live-action. Keep it close to the source material, but keep the writing strong, the humor witty and the action diverse with easy jump on points for non-fans.

[CelticPredator]

Look at this....

AvP, written by a fanboy, directed by a fanboy. ****.

Freddy Vs. Jason (weather you think it was good or bad) directed by non fan, but created a movie that respected BOTH characters. And for what it was, it worked.

Dont get a hardcore fan boy to make a movie, unless they can throw their fan crap out, and focus on the movie.

[BlackLantern]

Look at this....

AvP, written by a fanboy, directed by a fanboy. ****.

Freddy Vs. Jason (weather you think it was good or bad) directed by non fan, but created a movie that respected BOTH characters. And for what it was, it worked.

Dont get a hardcore fan boy to make a movie, unless they can throw their fan crap out, and focus on the movie.

I like Freddy vs Jason, I have the DVD and the commentary is one of my favorites it has Robert Englund, Ken Kirzinger (Jason) and Ronny Yu (director)


But this comes when the overwhelming success of Transformers and the failure of several artistically ambitious films will make the studios more risk-averse than ever. Universal linked a director who tries to pursue an artistic vision with one of the few true movie stars that we have left. When experiments like that don’t succeed, we may be left with so few movies for grownups that within a year, the Academy won’t be able to find even five, much less 10, credible candidates for Best Picture.

excerpt from a Daily Beast article about Michael Mann

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-30/public-enemies-true-crimes/2/

for those of you that wonder why these huge studio films do the things they do

[Saint]

What do you mean by there being nothing that drives the story? There are several elements that do. Do you mean they never crystallize a reason for Sam to doubt himself and his role in the struggle early on, therefore it sort of comes out of nowhere?
That, yes, but more that nothing in the film is actually affected by these plot points. If the romance was absent, what would be different? Nothing. If Sam wasn't struggling to find his place, what would be different? Maybe something, but I can't tell you what. It's not like he had the option to say "I'm not playing this game any more."

Now, you might say that Sam didn't affect the story, but the story affected Sam. Meh. Sam said he didn't want to help, but then later decided he did want to help. There's just not much there to make that meaningful or interesting. You only believe he had this change of heart because the film tells you. It doesn't show you.

[AnorexicBatman]

http://screenrant.com/marvel-updates...ome-rob-15413/

Proof that people like Micheal Bay should stop making films...
Adaptations are not hard. They just require using your noggin...
Bay doesn't have anything in his clearly...

Also, the general public doesn't know any better.
TF2 is more damaging than most understand

[BlackLantern]

http://screenrant.com/marvel-updates...ome-rob-15413/

Proof that people like Micheal Bay should stop making films...
Adaptations are not hard. They just require using your noggin...
Bay doesn't have anything in his clearly...

Also, the general public doesn't know any better.
TF2 is more damaging than most understand

the folks at ScreenRant can be a little much sometime....in other news...rumors that Michael Bay will have a pair of customer slippers made.....from a panda

[terry78]

The summer honestly is not made for the adult crowd. Everything is either for the kids, pre-teens or for the 18-29 set. Pelham 123, Angels and Demons, and Public Enemies are the only things released that most 40+ people will go check out in droves.

[AnorexicBatman]

Correction... this is the year of immature adolescents....
All kids have had this year is Up and maybe Ice Age 3...

2011 will be the year of kids.... TOY STORY 3... *****es

[BlackLantern]

The summer honestly is not made for the adult crowd. Everything is either for the kids, pre-teens or for the 18-29 set. Pelham 123, Angels and Demons, and Public Enemies are the only things released that most 40+ people will go check out in droves.

but Pelham and Angels and Demons weren't very good.....I have higher hopes for Public Enemies and Inglorious Basterds

[The Guard]

That, yes, but more that nothing in the film is actually affected by these plot points. If the romance was absent, what would be different? Nothing. If Sam wasn't struggling to find his place, what would be different? Maybe something, but I can't tell you what.

What exactly do you mean “what would be different”? That's kind of like asking what would be different if Batman had never unretired himself in THE DARK KNIGHT. The differences are fairly obvious: Sam's premise would change, but the overall story premise would remain the same, as would the outcome of it.

If there was no romance there'd be no romance. Would that be a horrible thing? Well, maybe not (debatable with Megan Fox involved for many), but the romance does add at least a bit of additional heart, stakes, relevance and conflict to Sam's quest. With Mikaela involved, his decisions take on another dimension entirely, as now he has to consider her well being and feelings in his choices, a future with her, safety, etc, weighed against the bigger picture. Concretely though, with this plot, if Mikaela didn't care about Sam, she doesn't go visit him, there's literally no depth to the The Pretender showing up and it's role in Sam's life, Wheelie doesn't come into play as he did, and no one ever figures out anything about what's about to happen to the Earth, which strikes me as a bad thing.

If Sam didn't embrace his role in events, it’s fairly obvious that Optimus Prime would not have come back to life, and no one would stop The Fallen and the Decepticons from destroying all life on Earth. I mean, I guess we can hope someone might have stopped them, but I just don't see that happening, per what the movie shows. That seems like a pretty big change to me.

It's not like he had the option to say "I'm not playing this game any more."

Sure he did. He chose to go on with his quest.

Now, you might say that Sam didn't affect the story, but the story affected Sam. Meh. Sam said he didn't want to help, but then later decided he did want to help. There's just not much there to make that meaningful or interesting.

The story affected Sam and Sam affected the story.

It's not executed particularly well. There's not much of a struggle from Sam, he just doesn't to help or feel he can, and then something happens that makes him want to help, and feel he can. There's no uber dramatic "turning point moment" where Sam sees or experiences something that suggests he needs to be a part of the Transformers world (though his reaction to Prime sacrificing himself for him is somewhat in that vein). This is the film's major weakness, but the story elements are still there. They're not some empty framework. If you can't glean that Sam feels a responsibility to the Transformers, and as he realizes the scale of events, to the Earth itself...

You only believe he had this change of heart because the film tells you. It doesn't show you.

And again, this a weakness of the film as a whole. Telling more than showing. But what do you consider Sam actually experiencing events that involve him, realizing the scale of what he's involved in, and choosing his place in them? Is that not showing to an extent?

[Saint]

What exactly do you mean “what would be different”? That's kind of like asking what would be different if Batman had never unretired himself in THE DARK KNIGHT. The differences are fairly obvious: Sam's premise would change, but the overall story premise would remain the same, as would the outcome of it.

If there was no romance there'd be no romance. Would that be a horrible thing? Well, maybe not (debatable with Megan Fox involved for many), but the romance does add at least a bit of additional heart, stakes, relevance and conflict to Sam's quest.
It didn't add any of those things to any satisafactory degree, which is one of the reasons I'm saying the movie would be only marginally different without it.

With Mikaela involved, his decisions take on another dimension entirely, as now he has to consider her well being and feelings in his choices, a future with her, safety, etc, weighed against the bigger picture.
You're describing things that should have been in the film; not things that actually were in the film, at least not in any meaningful amount.

Concretely though, with this plot, if Mikaela didn't care about Sam, she doesn't go visit him, there's literally no depth to the The Pretender showing up and it's role in Sam's life, Wheelie doesn't come into play as he did, and no one ever figures out anything about what's about to happen to the Earth, which strikes me as a bad thing.
There was no depth, anyway. Mikaela was mad, and then later she wasn't. The end.

Furthermore, why did she have to be romantically involved in order to visit him? She came because they had a problem involving the Transformers--one of whom attacked her in her garage. She would not have come to solve their problem if she had not been romantically involved? That seems a dubious conclusion. She comes, everything turns out the same.

If Sam didn't embrace his role in events, it’s fairly obvious that Optimus Prime would not have come back to life, and no one would stop The Fallen
I don't see how that's fairly obvious. Whether Sam decided he had a place in this war or not doesn't change the fact that he wants to survive. Can't do that with the sun exploding. If Sam had decided that he would have nothing more to do with the autobots after averting the crisis at hand, what would have changed? He wouldn't have been standing with Optimus at the end, and that's all.

Sure he did. He chose to go on with his quest.
The alternative was "I think I'll wait for death," so you'll understand if I don't consider it much of a choice.

The story affected Sam and Sam affected the story.

It's not executed particularly well. There's not much of a struggle from Sam, he just doesn't to help or feel he can, and then something happens that makes him want to help, and feel he can. There's no uber dramatic "turning point moment" where Sam sees or experiences something that suggests he needs to be a part of the Transformers world (though his reaction to Prime sacrificing himself for him is somewhat in that vein). This is the film's major weakness, but the story elements are still there. They're not some empty framework.
I believe you have described exactly why they are empty framework.

But what do you call Sam actually experiencing events that involve him, realizing the scale of what he's involved in, and choosing his place in them? Is that not showing to an extent?
To the same extent that showing someone a tree and then showing them a piece of paper is showing them that paper comes from trees, perhaps.

[Silent_Dave]

My thoughts on ROTF:

EXPLOSION:shock, EXPLOSION:shock, "I am now under the enemy's scrotum" :facepalm

[Milu]

Good; the first one was better though.

[roach]

[QUOTE=AnorexicBatman;17130099
Also, the general public doesn't know any better.
TF2 is more damaging than most understand[/QUOTE]

yes because we are too frakking stupid to know what we like. Thank you oh great internet being for showing me the error of my ways. Please tell what I should like because Im too busy Twittering to be entertained

[The Guardian]

YAY I"M FINALLY BACK WOO HOO LOL!!! Oh you guys have no idea how good it feels to type this!!! I lost my internet connection last Monday after getting home from being out of town for that weekend and I've been strugling for the past week to get it back frustrating failure after frustraiting failure!!!:mad: Thankfully a friend who works for AT&T (my ISP) helped me get things back up and running again, along with a new router I just bought which has sped up my connection considerably, so my slow and aganising torture is finally over WOO HOO!!!:D:up:

Ok on to my little review, I'm not one for long winded reviews so I'll keep it brief, I FREAKING LOVED THE MOVIE!!! Could I have done with less testicle jokes and more dialog between the autobots, sure, but to me these things didn't make the movie any less fun!!! I enjoyed the twins more than I thought I would, they were freaking hilarious as was wheelie!!! The fight scenes in the forest and the long as hell final battle were freaking awesome!!! I've seen it twice and will be seeing it atleast 2 more times in the theaters, and OMG @ the box office #s, crazy stuff,:eek::up: I'm very happy about that, I really enjoyed the roller coaster ride 9.5/10!!!:D:up:

[DarknessOfDeath]

Awesome Guardian. Glad you liked it :up: :D

[bell110]

Im sure if you let a hardest of the hardcore Transformers fan write a film, you'd probably have 50 people that actually got it, the other 96 percent of the movie viewing public would go see 'The Hangover' again

As long as there were Giant ****ing Robots fighting each other, the movie would be a hit.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Went for a 3rd time tonight, unfortunately it was ruined by ****ing idiots who wanted to pay money to ruin the movie for themselves and everyone else by shouting and making sex noises, pisses me right off.

I may have to go and see it a 4th time to make up for it.

[The Guardian]

Awesome Guardian. Glad you liked it :up: :D

Yeah it was allot of fun:D especially after the week I'd been having,:mad: I'm looking forward to seeing it again, it's just a fun movie to watch and Prime PWNS in this one which is freaking awesome!!!:D:up:

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

As long as there were Giant ****ing Robots fighting each other, the movie would be a hit.

Then tell me, why wasnt Terminator 4?

[bell110]

I know. I keep hoping someone else will chime in. People scream foul, but then when you ask "What would be better in terms of the actual storyline", there's nary a peep.

I think simply a story that makes sense would help.

One of the biggest questions is how this movie ties in with the first? It may seem like a simplistic question, but I’ve seen the movie twice and I don’t know what’s going on. I don’t see a connection.

The first movie, Megatron takes over Cybertron. They lose the Allspark. Megatron follows it to Earth and gets stuck in the arctic.

The second movie, the first Primes come to Earth and build a sun-destroying machine during the Stone Age, the Fallen becomes too powerful, and the Primes hide themselves and the Matrix.

How do these storylines fit together? This one thing alone kills my brain with questions.

Here’s another question, how did the government cover up the massive destruction in the city, with presumable thousands of witnesses, as well as the Secretary of Defense going on TV saying that there’s been an alien attack, yet in the second movie, it’s all just an internet conspiracy? That is some high suspension of disbelief.

What’s the deal with the sun-destroying machine? So apparently, Transformers need to harness such vast amounts of energy that it will kill the sun, so what have they been living off of for the last thousands of years?

If a piece of the Allspark can revive Megatron, why couldn’t the Autobots use their piece to revive Jazz or Optimus?

And those are just question off the top of my head. Those are just complaints about actually story. I could go on with complaints about character development and lazy/retarded editing, but I think plenty of people have gone into that.

In the end, I’m not looking for the next Citizen Kane; I just want a story that doesn’t have me scratching my head thinking, “What The **** Just Happened”?

[bell110]

Then tell me, why wasnt Terminator 4?

I didn't see Terminator 4, so I don't know, maybe Terminator 3 had something to do with it. Also, Terminator isn't Transformers.

[Mr. Earle]

What’s the deal with the sun-destroying machine? So apparently, Transformers need to harness such vast amounts of energy that it will kill the sun, so what have they been living off of for the last thousands of years?
I want to see Guard defending the movie on this.

[CEREBRAL....]

I wish...believe me. :) I tried to get into the industry writing screenplays, but it's next to impossible. It's more about who you know and not so much the quality of your work in many ways.


Isn't it how life works in general...never about your work, just who u know....damn shame...leaves a lot of the more talent'd ones on the shelf or back burner.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think simply a story that makes sense would help.

One of the biggest questions is how this movie ties in with the first? It may seem like a simplistic question, but I’ve seen the movie twice and I don’t know what’s going on. I don’t see a connection.

The first movie, Megatron takes over Cybertron. They lose the Allspark. Megatron follows it to Earth and gets stuck in the arctic.

Seeing as The Fallen called Megatron his disciple, could it not have been The Fallen that turned Megatron bad and against his comrades? The Fallen is referred to as the first Decepticon, so this is entirely plausible.


The second movie, the first Primes come to Earth and build a sun-destroying machine during the Stone Age, the Fallen becomes too powerful, and the Primes hide themselves and the Matrix.

How do these storylines fit together? This one thing alone kills my brain with questions.

Megatron mentions in ROTF he had failed the Fallen by not obtaining the Allspark, which would have powered the machine, The Allspark was not energon, otherwise it would have revived Jetfire completely and utterley, it didnt, it just woke him up.

[
Here’s another question, how did the government cover up the massive destruction in the city, with presumable thousands of witnesses, as well as the Secretary of Defense going on TV saying that there’s been an alien attack, yet in the second movie, it’s all just an internet conspiracy? That is some high suspension of disbelief.

Sam's Dad mentioned in the movie that the government were paying for re-construction on their house, is it out of the realm of possibility that they payed a lot of other people off as well. They wouldnt have caught everyone, but the people running for their lives at that moment in the first movie probably didnt know WTF was going on.

[
What’s the deal with the sun-destroying machine? So apparently, Transformers need to harness such vast amounts of energy that it will kill the sun, so what have they been living off of for the last thousands of years?

Starscream says in the movie their Energon is running out, and the Transformers also harvested Suns from lifeless planets in the past, could it maybe have been this what they were living off?

[
If a piece of the Allspark can revive Megatron, why couldn’t the Autobots use their piece to revive Jazz or Optimus?

Jazz or Optimus didnt have a spare spark, the Decep's destroyed one of their own and gave his spark to Megatron, then at the end Prime got Jetfire's.


[
And those are just question off the top of my head. Those are just complaints about actually story. I could go on with complaints about character development and lazy/retarded editing, but I think plenty of people have gone into that.

In the end, I’m not looking for the next Citizen Kane; I just want a story that doesn’t have me scratching my head thinking, “What The **** Just Happened”?

All of this, and other criticisms I hear are all in the frickin movie, its just about paying attention rather than looking for flaws.

[BlackLantern]

also what happened to Sams great grandfather happened to him with bits of the allspark being imprinted into his brain....archibald witwicky got hit with a blast of coordinates from Megatron and sam got his brain filled with the remnants of the Allspark when he dropped it on his floor

[CEREBRAL....]

All of this, and other criticisms I hear are all in the frickin movie, its just about paying attention rather than looking for flaws.


isn't not about loooking for flaws..it's about noticing what's wrong plain n simple...

[protocida]

I finally saw it! :woot:

And it was AWESOME!! Top notch movie. It had it's flaws (The robots got a little shafted in the final battle), but it was AWESOME nevertheless.

10/10.

[BlackLantern]

Everyone I know, friends and coworkers, that have seen it has had nothing but praise, even my mom liked it

[J.Howlett]

The government covered up the Mission City destruction because global communications were down during the battle. Jon Voight's character mentions that at least twice in act two of the first film.

That's where the cover up is. It's not explained but that's how they got away with the cover up.

As for using the sliver from Sam's shirt to revive Optimus, well, watching it a third time this afternoon, Sam actually loses the thing. When Jetfire is ignited, the sliver magnetized to Jetfire and it was basically gone. Sam never tried to retrieve it nor was it even seen again....

[Sarge 2.0]

That, yes, but more that nothing in the film is actually affected by these plot points. If the romance was absent, what would be different? Nothing. If Sam wasn't struggling to find his place, what would be different? Maybe something, but I can't tell you what. It's not like he had the option to say "I'm not playing this game any more."

Now, you might say that Sam didn't affect the story, but the story affected Sam. Meh. Sam said he didn't want to help, but then later decided he did want to help. There's just not much there to make that meaningful or interesting. You only believe he had this change of heart because the film tells you. It doesn't show you.
Your points aren't going to get across because you're actually basing them on the evidence provided in the film instead of using fanboy rationalization and speculation. I applaud you for using erudition, but I fear that true critical thought is useless here. The Guard has constructed his argument using speculation and inferences in to things that are just not in the film. You can't budge stubborn fanboyism, even with rationality and knowledge.

[BlackLantern]

is this because only knowledgeable fanboys opinions count??

[J.Howlett]

Actually, Sam helps out of guilt more than anything for what happened to Optimus. He believes its his fault that he died...which it really wasn't. But, that doesn't change Sam's notion of what he must do. He feels its his responsibility to set things right...considering he's now Intersect.

[Sarge 2.0]

is this because only knowledgeable fanboys opinions count??Dude, I'm not talking about one type of fanboy being better than another. I'm discouraging fanboyism in favor of straight critical analysis.

[J.Howlett]

The romance, as an arc, doesn't work but the moments do work because of Shia and Megan. The romance is there for marketing and from a story point, to prove Mikaela's worth.

As she says, look at what she goes through. And honestly, I like it because their bond is shaped by these experiences in the two films with these alien wars. That's something only they share so I can buy the relationship and the growth between films.

Yes, you definitely have to make some assumptions to fill in the two years but because Shia and Megan play it really, really well, it works, despite the fact you don't need it and the writers didn't do the actors any favors by not giving them much to work with.

For some people, like me, it works only because of Shia and Megan's chemistry.

[Mr. Earle]

That, yes, but more that nothing in the film is actually affected by these plot points. If the romance was absent, what would be different? Nothing. If Sam wasn't struggling to find his place, what would be different? Maybe something, but I can't tell you what. It's not like he had the option to say "I'm not playing this game any more."

Now, you might say that Sam didn't affect the story, but the story affected Sam. Meh. Sam said he didn't want to help, but then later decided he did want to help. There's just not much there to make that meaningful or interesting. You only believe he had this change of heart because the film tells you. It doesn't show you.I agree with a lot of points you make in other posts, especially about the incomplete and empty subplots like the one with the Fallen going on TV. Bay forgot about that part in the next 2 minutes.

But in Sam's case, it didnt have to be so related. We are witnessing his life, whether it actively affects the larger events or not. The fact that he is going to college didnt have to be related necessarily to anything else. But it did.
He is moving on with his life. He understands that he doesnt belong in the war and wants a normal life. He is later forced into the whole thing by the decepticons and then Prime dies protecting him. I think that's a good reason for him to deliberate on his choices. He does so when he apologizes to Bee. A scene placed there for the sole purpose of showing Sam's remorse.
And if that wasnt enough, Sam cant get out of it even if he wanted to. Because he holds the key to the Matrix and the Fallen wont stop until he find it and therefore him. He cant escape the Fallen, he cant let the world end. His only choice is to revive Prime because he is the only one who can stop the Fallen. But he doesnt just do it because he has no alternative, but also because he feels responsible for Prime's death and because when **** hits the fan, he acts (unlike his roomate). Sam was like a soldier who didnt want to be sent to Iraq after fighting in Afganistan. But when the war reached his doorstep, he manned up, stopped being selfish and did what had to be done.

There are many subplots that are initiated and then dropped without resolution, but in my opinion, the subplot about Sam's stance to the war was done well.
The romance didnt need to have any importance in the greater things. It was just something for Mikaela and Sam to talk and argue about during the movie. It was one of Sam's everyday problems, just like his silly parents. They fleshed out his everyday life.

[BlackLantern]

Dude, I'm not talking about one type of fanboy being better than another. I'm discouraging fanboyism in favor of straight critical analysis.

I know, I was agreeing and going for sarcasm, but it didn't work out

[Mr. Earle]

The romance, as an arc, doesn't work but the moments do work because of Shia and Megan. The romance is there for marketing and from a story point, to prove Mikaela's worth.

As she says, look at what she goes through. And honestly, I like it because their bond is shaped by these experiences in the two films with these alien wars. That's something only they share so I can buy the relationship and the growth between films.

Yes, you definitely have to make some assumptions to fill in the two years but because Shia and Megan play it really, really well, it works, despite the fact you don't need it and the writers didn't do the actors any favors by not giving them much to work with.

For some people, like me, it works only because of Shia and Megan's chemistry.I agree on everything but the part in bold. They do have some chemistry, but she is so SUPER HOT and he is such a dork, that i cant buy it so easily. Its easier for me to buy huge alien robots transforming into cars :woot::grin::hehe:

[BlackLantern]

I agree on everything but the part in bold. They do have some chemistry, but she is so SUPER HOT and he is such a dork, that i cant buy it so easily. Its easier for me to buy huge alien robots transforming into cars :woot::grin::hehe:

then your cynicism is to blame:oldrazz: have you seen Christina Aguileras husband?? he looks like a hobbit

[Mr. Earle]

then your cynicism is to blame:oldrazz: have you seen Christina Aguileras husband?? he looks like a hobbitThen my chances of scoring with a supermodel are good! Excellent... To the batmobile! :brucebat:

:hehe:


Yeah i was exaggerating. I think we all got used to their relationship. But goddamn life has taught me different. A hot girl like Mikaela would be so arrogant and possessive, not begging to hear the L word. She is such a good girl i guess. And besides, not many teenagers have "slayer of Megatron, lord of the decepticons" in their resume.

[J.Howlett]

Earle,

Again, it has more to do with their experience together more than anything. Considering what we know of her and what she use to think of herself, her being with Sam makes sense.

Through two movies, you see why they're together. It's this war. In between the two battles, Sam's figured out a way to keep her eventhough he acknowledges in the film early that she could easily leave him for someone else considering how smokin' hot she is.

Sam's real about his relationship with Mikaela, hence the whole subplot with them in this film.

If she says it first, he's got her...which she acknowledges in the end with her reaction when he says "You said it first."

[J.Howlett]

By the way, you do know how the third film is going to end, right guys?

[BlackLantern]

what third film??? where are you people getting this from??

[J.Howlett]

200 million in five days...over 400 million in six days...yeah, there's going to be a third.

As for the ending of said future film, Bay has referenced all of his films in these two films.

How did he end Armageddon?

[bell110]

Seeing as The Fallen called Megatron his disciple, could it not have been The Fallen that turned Megatron bad and against his comrades? The Fallen is referred to as the first Decepticon, so this is entirely plausible.

Megatron mentions in ROTF he had failed the Fallen by not obtaining the Allspark, which would have powered the machine, The Allspark was not energon, otherwise it would have revived Jetfire completely and utterley, it didnt, it just woke him up.

But you're just assuming all of this. It wasn't mentioned in the movie. The matrix was the key to the machine, I don't remember anyone saying the Allspark would also power it. So when was the Allspark lost? Someone said all the history of Cybertron was in the Allspark, and that's why no one knew about the Primes being on Earth. Apparently Megatron knows about the Fallen, so he must know about the Primes. Why doesn't Optimus know? Did the Allspark reach Earth before or after the Primes set up the sun-destroying machine?


Sam's Dad mentioned in the movie that the government were paying for re-construction on their house, is it out of the realm of possibility that they payed a lot of other people off as well. They wouldnt have caught everyone, but the people running for their lives at that moment in the first movie probably didnt know WTF was going on.

I'm sorry, that's a little too much for the government to cover up. Covering that up would make the 9/11 cover up look like the Kennedy cover up. Plus I remember Voights character making a press conference saying we are dealing with an alien threat with greater technology than us. I need to double check on that.


Starscream says in the movie their Energon is running out, and the Transformers also harvested Suns from lifeless planets in the past, could it maybe have been this what they were living off?

The problem is shear amount of energy that is generated by a star. I can't buy that Transformers use so much of it and they exhaust the engery so fast that they have to keep planet hoping to sustain themselves.

Jazz or Optimus didnt have a spare spark, the Decep's destroyed one of their own and gave his spark to Megatron, then at the end Prime got Jetfire's.

I remember the Decepticons saying they needed parts from that guy, not a spark. And the spark is basically the robot's soul, so it wouldn't really be Megatron or Optimus anyways. Besides, wasn't Optimus already revived before Jetfire sacrificed himself? His spark was only a power-up.


All of this, and other criticisms I hear are all in the frickin movie, its just about paying attention rather than looking for flaws.

They aren't in the movie. Even in the first example you had to assume what might have happen. These are flaws that are in your face. When I go see a movie, I want the story to be told to me. I don't want to go home and piece the plot together on a message board.

[Sarge 2.0]

I know, I was agreeing and going for sarcasm, but it didn't work out
Ah, apologies then.

[BlackLantern]

200 million in five days...over 400 million in six days...yeah, there's going to be a third.

As for the ending of said future film, Bay has referenced all of his films in these two films.

How did he end Armageddon?

blew up a big rock and killed Bruce Willis

[Sarge 2.0]

blew up a big rock and killed Bruce Willis
And then blared Aerosmith.

[bell110]

By the way, you do know how the third film is going to end, right guys?

With the birth of Daniel?

[J.Howlett]

Wedding.

The Wedding, with the Autobots present and Bumblebee as the best man, considering the whole thing start out as a story about a boy and his car. After the wedding, the Autobots depart from Earth for good.

WRITE IT DOWN! Going to happen in 2012.

[BlackLantern]

They aren't in the movie. Even in the first example you had to assume what might have happen. These are flaws that are in your face. When I go see a movie, I want the story to be told to me. I don't want to go home and piece the plot together on a message board.

I managed to work it out just fine, but what do I know??...Im just a common movie watcher...a plebian if you would

[J.Howlett]

bell,

You shouldn't want everything told to you...some, but not all.

[Sarge 2.0]

Wedding.

The Wedding, with the Autobots present and Bumblebee as the best man, considering the whole thing start out as a story about a boy and his car. After the wedding, the Autobots depart from Earth for good.

WRITE IT DOWN! Going to happen in 2012.
...

I'm...I'm not even sure what to say. :csad:

[J.Howlett]

Sarge,

It's the sort of cliche thing that works in Bay's film. It's right up Spielberg's alley...and I have to be honest about it, it would be kind of sweet.

Bay'll try and go for the emotion and make it tearful for the audience. And, it may work considering how great Jablonsky is and the way Bay photographs his scenes.

[The Original Bamfer]

:unsubscribes:

[J.Howlett]

Lol....

[terry78]

I doubt the Autobots would permanently leave. They may send out other scouts or things to other planets, but some of them would stay, especially Bumblebee.

[SsM]

:unsubscribes:



Same here, I don't think there could be ANYTHING worse than BB as the best man in Sam's wedding.


That is an absolutely horrible, No... Horrible isn't bad enough. That is an atrocious idea.

[J.Howlett]

I'm warning you guys now. Just take this one to the bank. It's end game for the development of Sam from a boy with a serious crush to a man who got and kept the girl. It's also the end game for Bumblebee.

Revenge of the Fallen is the middle section from boyhood to manhood.

Heed the warning. The Witwicky Wedding in Summer 2012...

[bell110]

I managed to work it out just fine, but what do I know??...Im just a common movie watcher...a plebian if you would

I got the gist of the movie.

bell,

You shouldn't want everything told to you...some, but not all.

Hey, some would work too. Keeping things vague as a story telling element is fine, but that's not what Bay was trying to do.

[terry78]

And Judy brings pot brownies for everyone, right?

[BlackLantern]

Sarge,

It's the sort of cliche thing that works in Bay's film. It's right up Spielberg's alley...and I have to be honest about it, it would be kind of sweet.

Bay'll try and go for the emotion and make it tearful for the audience. And, it may work considering how great Jablonsky is and the way Bay photographs his scenes.

Bay would do it for the *****es, *****es love weddings.....and then Baysplosion!!!!

[J.Howlett]

Lantern,

Not to mention, the women apparently ate this film up. More went to this one than the last one.

[Mr. Earle]

Wedding.

The Wedding, with the Autobots present and Bumblebee as the best man, considering the whole thing start out as a story about a boy and his car. After the wedding, the Autobots depart from Earth for good.

WRITE IT DOWN! Going to happen in 2012.Who said its going to be a trilogy? This cow has much more milk!

[The Guardian]

:unsubscribes:

LOL, oh come on have a :heart: guys LOL!!!:D

[SsM]

And Judy brings pot brownies for everyone, right?


Judy is gorgeous... I'll go see TF3 for her :up:

[J.Howlett]

Earle,

Just with this cast and Bay as the director. That'll be a trilogy.

[BlackLantern]

Lantern,

Not to mention, the women apparently ate this film up. More went to this one than the last one.

and both films tracked very well with women in test screenings....both my mom and my 19 yo sister love the films....

[CelticPredator]

Same here, I don't think there could be ANYTHING worse than BB as the best man in Sam's wedding.


That is an absolutely horrible, No... Horrible isn't bad enough. That is an atrocious idea.

They should give him a custom fitted tux......


:o

[Balthus Dire]

I could totally see that wedding scenario happening in TF3. :o

[The Guard]

It didn't add any of those things to any satisafactory degree, which is one of the reasons I'm saying the movie would be only marginally different without it.

We've been down the "It wasn't done satisfactorically" road. I don't consider an entire romantic element missing from a film "marginal". Clearly we have different definitions of the word.

You're describing things that should have been in the film; not things that actually were in the film, at least not in any meaningful amount.

No, I'm describing things that were in the film in some fashion. They should have been explored better, and they weren't explored hardly at all, but they were there. There are several moments where Sam has to decide to go it alone, to go with Mikaela, to get Mikaela to safety or not, etc.

There was no depth, anyway. Mikaela was mad, and then later she wasn't. The end.

I like how you diminish things. It's just...it just is.

Furthermore, why did she have to be romantically involved in order to visit him? She came because they had a problem involving the Transformers--one of whom attacked her in her garage. She would not have come to solve their problem if she had not been romantically involved? That seems a dubious conclusion. She comes, everything turns out the same.

I see. So you assume she would have come to see him had she not been romantically involved?

I don't see how that's fairly obvious. Whether Sam decided he had a place in this war or not doesn't change the fact that he wants to survive.

Can't do that with the sun exploding. If Sam had decided that he would have nothing more to do with the autobots after averting the crisis at hand, what would have changed? He wouldn't have been standing with Optimus at the end, and that's all.

So you're saying that...although he feels he has no responsibility to the autobots in this version of events, he would somehow still go through this autobot-assisted quest to bring Prime back to life, despite the fact that he doesn't even know the Decepticon's reasoning behind wanting him or the details of it until like, halfway through the quest?

That somehow he'd have managed to find the key and go through the other steps to get to Prime and ressurrect him, even though he has nothing to do with the autobots?

How does that work, exactly?

The alternative was "I think I'll wait for death," so you'll understand if I don't consider it much of a choice.

What does "choice" mean to you? To me, it means a decision, and the ability to choose.

When Sam makes a decision to go globetrotting, he is making a choice. And unless you don't believe in free will, you have to admit he has a choice in the matter.

I believe you have described exactly why they are empty framework.

So you've got:
Sam going to college, leaving Bumblebee behind
Sam not wanting to be part of the Transformers war, denying their existence at college
Sam reinforcing this when Prime asks for his help
Sam being affected by the shard, freaking out, realizing the nature of his involvement in events, and trying to figure out what's going on
Sam being drawn into events again after being spied on and kidnapped by Decepticons
Sam seeing Prime die protecting him
Sam realizing his role in events, believing he owes Prime for what happened
Sam making a conscious choice to go globetrotting to bring Prime back
And the rest of the story, where Sam makes like, choice after choice to get deeper and deeper into the Transformers cause out of a sense of duty and responsibility.

And because there's only a subtle realization that he is touched by this war whether he likes it or not, it's an "empty framework"?

That's splitting hairs a bit, isn't it?

To the same extent that showing someone a tree and then showing them a piece of paper is showing them that paper comes from trees, perhaps.

I see. So showing things is not showing things. Got it.

[craigdbfan]

I could totally see that wedding scenario happening in TF3. :o

Would anyone be surprised if Bay decided to do that? :hehe:

I'm sure the rest of the Autobots will be the in house band playing 80's hits all night long throughout the wedding (all of them wearing tuxedos by the way). :word:

[The Guard]

Went for a 3rd time tonight, unfortunately it was ruined by ****ing idiots who wanted to pay money to ruin the movie for themselves and everyone else by shouting and making sex noises

Making sex noises in terms of having sex, or just making sex noises?

I think simply a story that makes sense would help.

The story does make sense. It's just a little over the top.

One of the biggest questions is how this movie ties in with the first? It may seem like a simplistic question, but I’ve seen the movie twice and I don’t know what’s going on. I don’t see a connection.

The first movie, Megatron takes over Cybertron. They lose the Allspark. Megatron follows it to Earth and gets stuck in the arctic.

That is uh, not the story of the first movie. That's Megatron's story, and only up to the point where he gets stuck in the Arctic.

The second movie, the first Primes come to Earth and build a sun-destroying machine during the Stone Age, the Fallen becomes too powerful, and the Primes hide themselves and the Matrix.

Again. This is only the story up to the part where the Primes hid the Matrix.

How do these storylines fit together? This one thing alone kills my brain with questions.

The idea of the Allspark/Energon being needed for the Decepticons to continue to dominate is found in both movies. It's pretty much that simple if those are the parts you don't see how they're connected.

But Sam's story is in both films.

The autobots role develops from film one to film two.

What do you mean "How are they connected"?

Here’s another question, how did the government cover up the massive destruction in the city, with presumable thousands of witnesses, as well as the Secretary of Defense going on TV saying that there’s been an alien attack, yet in the second movie, it’s all just an internet conspiracy? That is some high suspension of disbelief.

They didn't manage to cover it up, as evidenced by Leo and Simmon's websites. They TRIED to.



The Decepticons clearly, as they did in the first film, want the energy to build more robots, to continue the creation process, not just to keep themselves going indefinitely, though that may be part of it. One assumes there is still some Energon somewhere, since the main characters, you know, keep going and don't stop working and power down in the middle of the movie (unless they die).

[quote]If a piece of the Allspark can revive Megatron, why couldn’t the Autobots use their piece to revive Jazz or Optimus?

Because, as you'll notice in both movies, the Allspark turned things into mindless killing machines if they aren't already imbued with life somehow. And I think they also needed a Spark and the Allspark to revive Megatron (or maybe they didn't, and he's just awesome like that). Isn't there an actual line about "Get his spark and parts" or something?

Your points aren't going to get across because you're actually basing them on the evidence provided in the film instead of using fanboy rationalization and speculation. I applaud you for using erudition, but I fear that true critical thought is useless here. The Guard has constructed his argument using speculation and inferences in to things that are just not in the film. You can't budge stubborn fanboyism, even with rationality and knowledge.

Really?

Really?

Do you all understand that you're asking "Why does the giant energy cube sometimes kill if Transformers OD on it and sometimes bring life in shard form, and have inconsistent effects? As if anyone here somehow knows the specific amount of energy it takes to reanimate, kill, or power a Transformer?

You're asking for specific details on...the giant transforming energy cube and the properties of its magic energy shards? What do you want, the exact science of it?

Go read the Transformers mythology. Look at all the random, plot device crap that the All Spark, Underbase, and Matrix of Leadership do. Then get back to me.

Good lord, people. This is borderline ridiculous.

[craigdbfan]

Its funny I was just re watching the first episode of G1 and in that episode alone there was a fart joke involving Cliffjumper saying "Eat gas" and emitting smoke off his exhaust.

Yet people viciously attack ROTF when it makes fart references with the bots. When it was done several times throughout G1. The cheesy one liners that come out the Autobots mouth are hilariously funny though (intentionally done, I've always enjoyed G1 humor).

But when Bay pays homage to this type of comedy it is shunned and criticized to the core.

[Sarge 2.0]

Its funny I was just re watching the first episode of G1 and in that episode alone there was a fart joke involving Cliffjumper saying "Eat gas" and emitting smoke off his exhaust.

Yet people viciously attack ROTF when it makes fart references with the bots. When it was done several times throughout G1. The cheesy one liners that come out the Autobots mouth are hilariously funny though (intentionally done, I've always enjoyed G1 humor).

But when Bay pays homage to this type of comedy it is shunned and criticized to the core.
Because it's stupid. Also, I don't think there's a "core" to stupid humor because that would imply layers. Having robots that fart is stupid, no matter where or when it appears. Also, I doubt Bay was doing that as an homage to anything. It's the kind of cheap comedy that Bay has always done because he has the mind of a 12 year old boy.

[Marvin]

so bay gave the big F_U to critics this summer, perhaps proving once and for all who exactly is out of touch with todays audience...

get ready for the big push by critics to get people to see the new releases of the week and possibly forget about TF

I eagerly await this weekends reviews

[Sarge 2.0]

so bay gave the big F_U to critics this summer, perhaps proving once and for all who exactly is out of touch with todays audience...

get ready for the big push by critics to get people to see the new releases of the week and possibly forget about TF

I eagerly await this weekends reviews
I didn't realize that advocating good taste meant that you were out of touch.

[DW4]

My quick review....


I was nothing but disappointed, big time. It was just a huge gag reel, yes the CGI parts were amazing and the fight scenes were awesome but where was any character development? Why the hell was that Leo? guy in the movie, he served no purpose at all and was not funny at all. Can we give Bumblebee a voice please? Jesus Christ. Michael Bay did more with little with the first movie and did a whole lot less with more in this movie. They completely ruined the character of Jetfire. Don't even get me started on that at all. Can someone other than Optimus Prime and Bumblebee do something? Way to throw Ratchet into the basement, he did absolutely nothing. Way to introduce a very cool and a growing character in Sideswipe and after Shanghai throw him away. What did Arcee do exactly? Ironhide is a fan favorite and he did have a decent role in this but can we get him killing some Decepticons? What was the purpose of Devastator? What did he even do? He practically got beat by two kids than they just disappeared out of no where. Don't even get me started on the Decepticons. Though there are some bright spots like Optimus Prime being a complete badass, potential awesome character in Sideswipe, the bickering between Megatron and Starscream was perfect just perfect and I happy when Megatron knew he was beaten and called on Starscream at the end, the battles especially the forest one was beautiful and the score was amazing, the music was very well done. Other than that and a few things here and there I was very very disappointed. Way to go Michael Bay. Go away.

6.6/10

[Marvin]

I didn't realize that advocating good taste meant that you were out of touch.

funny, most critics begin their reviews with

"I did/did not like this movie because..."

good taste and their taste need not be confused


besides most critics are fickle hypocrites fueled by agenda and some corrupted by their false sense of influence
some, not all

and yes, a lot of critics are out of touch, many a review stated that this film was "unbearable, un watchable, full of humor that falls flat and action that is impossible to dicypher"

well they must have been referring to every theater excluding my own.
how else would one explain the laughing, oos and ahh, cheering, and applause...and the record setting ticket sales..

out of touch

[Episode29]

funny, most critics begin their reviews with

"I did/did not like this movie because..."

Bad ones, yes.

good taste and their taste need not be confused

They aren't a united committee working in tandom to define good taste. Some liked RotF, some thought it was mediocre, some despised it. Don't slander an entire population of professionals simply because you don't agree with some of their member's opinions.


besides most critics are fickle hypocrites fueled by agenda and some corrupted by their false sense of influence
some, not all

A few, sure. Rex Reed, Armond White, Alex Billingdon... Most? Get over yourself and do a little more reading and expand your horizons. Having spent a considerable amount of time with the Vancouver film critics circle, I'd say they are far less cynical and vengeance-seeking than internet fanboys. I can't think of a single one of the members I've encountered who've been "corrupted by their false sense of influence". That's just immature talk for "Waaa! Why won't they validate my taste in cruddy blockbusters!". I doubt you were as ready to string 'em up when the reviews for Star Trek, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Spiderman 2, X2, etc. were coming in.

and yes, a lot of critics are out of touch, many a review stated that this film was "unbearable, un watchable, full of humor that falls flat and action that is impossible to dicypher"

That's their opinion. Word to the wise, 30-40+ year old professional journalists may not share the same sense of humour as you. In regards to those particular criticisms, I felt they both are very true in regards to RotF. And I ain't an old out-of-touch critic.

well they must have been referring to every theater excluding my own.
how else would one explain the laughing, oos and ahh, cheering, and applause...and the record setting ticket sales..

out of touch

They usually attend pre-screenings. Not with an audience.

Oh, by the way, there was plenty of laughter during Rush Hour 3, Paul Blart and Wild Hogs as well.

It's not a critic's job to base their critism around an audience's potential reaction. They watched the film, layed out their thoughts, wrote their review, and moved on to the next film.

And, for the gazillionth time, record-setting ticket sales don't equal masterpiece. If that was the case, every major summer blockbuster would be sweeping the awards. Plus, I doubt you'd be throwing down this defense over Twilight's massive weekend haul.

[Saint]

I see. So you assume she would have come to see him had she not been romantically involved?
That is what I said.

So you're saying that...although he feels he has no responsibility to the autobots in this version of events, he would somehow still go through this autobot-assisted quest to bring Prime back to life, despite the fact that he doesn't even know the Decepticon's reasoning behind wanting him or the details of it until like, halfway through the quest?

That somehow he'd have managed to find the key and go through the other steps to get to Prime and ressurrect him, even though he has nothing to do with the autobots?

How does that work, exactly?
I didn't say he had "nothing to do with the autobots." I said that he could have done all the things he needed to do, all the things he did in the film, working with the autobots, motivated purely by his desire to survive, with the intention of having nothing to do with them and their war once that task was finished.

What does "choice" mean to you? To me, it means a decision, and the ability to choose.
Oh, so we're going to do that thing, now? The semantics thing? You know full well what I meant. I said that Sam didn't have the option to say "Hey, I'm not playing this game anymore," and you countered that he did have the option, and instead decided to carry on with the quest. Since the only alternative to carrying one with the quest was horrible death by Decepticons, I'm reasonably comfortable saying that it wasn't an option. His decision to be a part of their war motivates him in the film as it exists, but it's not important, because he wasn't going to choose the alternative (death by Decepticons) whether he wanted to be a part of their war or not.

So you've got:
Sam going to college, leaving Bumblebee behind
Sam not wanting to be part of the Transformers war, denying their existence at college
Sam reinforcing this when Prime asks for his help
Sam being affected by the shard, freaking out, realizing the nature of his involvement in events, and trying to figure out what's going on
Sam being drawn into events again after being spied on and kidnapped by Decepticons
Sam seeing Prime die protecting him
Sam realizing his role in events, believing he owes Prime for what happened
Sam making a conscious choice to go globetrotting to bring Prime back
And the rest of the story, where Sam makes like, choice after choice to get deeper and deeper into the Transformers cause out of a sense of duty and responsibility.

And because there's only a subtle realization that he is touched by this war whether he likes it or not, it's an "empty framework"?

That's splitting hairs a bit, isn't it?
It's an empty framework because almost everything on that list either amounts to nothing, or amounts to very little of interest. And no, it's not splitting hairs.

I see.
Apparently not.

[Nathan]

G4 debate (http://g4tv.com/videos/39560/The-Real-Transformers-Debate-/) between one who liked and one who disliked the Movie.

[J.Howlett]

Devin is a piece of work, I swear.

[Jake Cassidy]

^ He's a piece of ****.

[BlackLantern]

Devin is the nerd version of a DBag

[Godman]

Good night and Good luck is one of my favorites. Haven't had a chance to catch Frost/Nixon

Frost/Nixon...****in amazing

[The Lizard]

well they must have been referring to every theater excluding my own.
how else would one explain the laughing, oos and ahh, cheering, and applause...and the record setting ticket sales..

out of touch

There was lots of laughing, "oos and ahh" from the kids who saw Shrek 3 multiple times and gave it the #2 opening weekend in 2007 and a box office of $322 mil US.

So I guess all the critics who gave it poor reviews should just be dismissed as "out of touch". So ignore those critics - Shrek 3 was actually awesome. :whatever:

get ready for the big push by critics to get people to see the new releases of the week and possibly forget about TF

Wait ... do you actually believe that there is some kind of concerted effort among movie critics to derail TF:ROTF? Some kind of secret conspiracy of movie critics? :huh:

[BlackLantern]

I don't think critics are "out of touch" at all, but their function is to give their analysis of the movie...Transformers is also a very specific genre...its a movie about giant robots punching each other and lots of shooting...there really aren't a lot of other movies that have that so I think critics don't know how to react to that....I remember when Spider-Man was released a critic in the LA Times ripped it because he felt that Peter Parker wasn't an interesting enough character to make him (the critic) care about the movie

I get that some fans want critics to like/applaud the film....it gives them a sense of validation that their years of fandom mean something. I liked it, but I fully expected the critics to rip it up, but it has made obscene amounts of cash so it balances out

[Godman]

so bay gave the big F_U to critics this summer, perhaps proving once and for all who exactly is out of touch with todays audience...

get ready for the big push by critics to get people to see the new releases of the week and possibly forget about TF

I eagerly await this weekends reviews

I remember a time when directors didn't make movies to fit the audience level of thinking and or entertainment values, but forced us to dive into their worlds regardless with such depth of movies as E.T., Flight Of The Navigator, Indiana Jones, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator, Predator, Star Wars, Ghost Busters, Back to The Future, Goonies, Gremlins, Jurassic Park, 007...etc. All movies with very high value of creativity and none were remakes or adaptations of old movies or cartoons. All these movies were in with the times but made memorable characters and moments never to be duplicated.

The last major BO movie where the director forced the audience into their world and not the other way around where they cater their direction towards what the audience may think is HIP or in fashion was "THE MATRIX" which in a movie since was borrowing ideas here and there but remained original.. Made tons of money but remained extremely smart and had layers of depth still discussed today.

Speed Racer had more thought provoking ideas and ideals than Transformers though many slept on such a charismatic movie with such high entertainment value.

Casino Royale was when a director gets out the safe zone and goes the distance making a movie HE felt was important to the character and respected universe of that theme. Quantum Of Solace is when the studio decides to cater to the audience which was still a good movie, but was sheer WOW moment type entertainment and not a fully fleshed out FILM.

Everything meant something in movies of old, but movies like Transformers and even the last Indie which have great IDEAS, but too many forced characters and concepts to add. Random scenes to make the dumb founded and nullified "LIL WAYNE" generation say "cool".


As much as many hated the 2003 HULK and claimed the new one was more entertaining prove my theory. Ang Lee didn't cater to the audience and made an engaging drama which had some silly scenes u can tell the studio thought a summer block buster MUST have. If Ang was given FULL control we wouldn't have had Hulk dogs etc and remained with an epic drama that hulk was meant to be. The new one took out any idea of a fleshed out universe and assumed the audience was up on things and just started the M. Bay style of motion pictures.

Funny enough that the first Hulk made just as much as the newer one and for such a long dramatic take on a comic book icon, wasn't too shabby and critics acknowledged it with high regard. Where as the newer Hulk felt crammed with quick Summer block buster quips.

We are now in an age where creative geniuses as Michael Jackson are mourned more than celebrated by the world because we know the end of a great era has officially announced it's self where the current music, movies, and sports are not as engaging, creative, INNOVATIVE, and enthralling as they once were.

[Nathan]

I remember when Spider-Man was released a critic in the LA Times ripped it because he felt that Peter Parker wasn't an interesting enough character to make him (the critic) care about the movie

I can't really argue with that. Tobey's Peter is a sleeping pill on legs.

[The Guard]

I remember a time when directors didn't make movies to fit the audience level of thinking and or entertainment values, but forced us to dive into their worlds regardless with such depth of movies as E.T., Flight Of The Navigator, Indiana Jones, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator, Predator, Star Wars, Ghost Busters, Back to The Future, Goonies, Gremlins, Jurassic Park, 007...etc. All movies with very high value of creativity and none were remakes or adaptations of old movies or cartoons. All these movies were in with the times but made memorable characters and moments never to be duplicated.

I agree, but Hollywood is Hollywood. It has always survived by a few making a few truly creative and groundbreaking films, and the rest are adaptions or remakes or schlock designed for the mainstream public. It's pretty much always been that way, as far back as you go. There was never a time when all filmmakers or even most fillmmakers said "Let's stop pandering and just be creative", or when all filmmakers had the talent to do this.

That is why the films you mention are so special. These are the movies where a talented few creators DID say that. And even in those movies, you won't find perfection if you assess them honestly. You'll find, for the most part, a bunch of fairly average character development and dialogue, surrounded by great story ideas and grounbreaking action and effects. None of those movies you mentioned above are particularly deep...they're just a nice balance of entertainment and exploration of interesting concepts.

And there are still good movies being made in many categories. To suggest or even imply that there are not some movies still being made that are creative...I can't get on board with that.

[BlackLantern]

I agree, but Hollywood is Hollywood. It has always survived by making a few creative films, and the rest are adaptions or schlock designed for the mainstream public. It's pretty much always been that way, as far back as you go. There was never a time when all filmmakers said "Let's stop pandering and just be creative". That is why the films you mention are so special. These are the movies where creators DID say that. And even in those movies...you won't find perfection. You'll find, for the most part, a bunch of fairly average character development and dialogue, and great story ideas.

And there are still good movies being made. None of those movies you mentioned are particularly deep...they're just a nice balance of entertainment and exploration. To suggest or even imply that there are not some movies still being made that are creative...I can't get on board with that.

It's a one hand washes the other type of deal....the big tentpoles like Transformers make money that allows Paramount to invest in risky films or smaller films, or maybe even bankroll an indie....you can't have one without the other

[dark_b]

I remember a time when directors didn't make movies to fit the audience level of thinking and or entertainment values, but forced us to dive into their worlds regardless with such depth of movies as E.T., Flight Of The Navigator, Indiana Jones, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator, Predator, Star Wars, Ghost Busters, Back to The Future, Goonies, Gremlins, Jurassic Park, 007...etc. All movies with very high value of creativity and none were remakes or adaptations of old movies or cartoons. All these movies were in with the times but made memorable characters and moments never to be duplicated.


this are to me movies that were made for entertainment and nothing deep.

[The Guard]

I didn't say he had "nothing to do with the autobots." I said that he could have done all the things he needed to do, all the things he did in the film, working with the autobots, motivated purely by his desire to survive, with the intention of having nothing to do with them and their war once that task was finished.

Ah. I misinsterpreted what you said, assuming you meant "Had Sam decided he wanted nothing more to do with the autobots after averting the crisis at hand", which I took to be his personal crisis, I.E, being possessed by the shard at college and having Decepticons after him. I didn't realize you meant the whole journey.

My apologies.

So you meant "Had Sam simply decided, after all he'd been through involving the shard and the Matrix of Leadership, not to be involved with the autobots", nothing would change at the end of the film compared to if he did decide to stay with the autobots?

Except that since he'd no longer have anything to do with the autobots, he'd no longer, after spending the film with them, have anything to do with them, and not be a committed part of their future, so something would have changed, yes? I mean, instead of having a bunch of transforming robot warriors around him, he'd have none. That strikes me as a bit of a difference in one's existence.

I feel that his decision to become involved in the Transformers conflict is the beginning of his character development, and the ongoing increasing degrees of involvement he undergoes are his character developing more and more into the person who is a part of the Autobots world.

I don't think it's a simple a character arc as "I want to stay with the autobots". I think the arc here is about his confidence and belief in himself in the grand scheme of things. Which is why he says "Thanks for believing in me" at the end of the movie. That's his arc summed up in a rather unsubtle manner.

Also, even had Sam ultimately decided that he wanted nothing more to do with the Autobots or their war, he would still have undergone character development as a person, wouldn't he, as he tests his limits, discovers what he's capable of, etc?

Oh, so we're going to do that thing, now? The semantics thing? You know full well what I meant. I said that Sam didn't have the option to say "Hey, I'm not playing this game anymore," and you countered that he did have the option, and instead decided to carry on with the quest. Since the only alternative to carrying one with the quest was horrible death by Decepticons, I'm reasonably comfortable saying that it wasn't an option. His decision to be a part of their war motivates him in the film as it exists, but it's not important, because he wasn't going to choose the alternative (death by Decepticons) whether he wanted to be a part of their war or not.

I don't think this is a semantic trap. I believe people have a choice in life as to what their actions are. I believe there are good choices and bad choices and gray areas, but I do believe people have a choice in terms of their actions. Sam didn't know the stakes at the beginning, he only knew the Decepticons wanted him for something. After Prime's death, Sam didn't have to find out what, or the extent of that, and he certainly didn't have to go on a globetrotting quest of unraveling clues to raise Prime from the dead. He could have just waited for the Decepticons to come for him, or hidden and hoped they wouldn't find him, or run. Like many people do when adversity strikes. But he didn't. He chose not to.

It's an empty framework because almost everything on that list either amounts to nothing, or amounts to very little of interest. And no, it's not splitting hairs.

I don't know what you consider "something" or "interesting". Apparently a basic hero quest isn't it. Fair enough.

Apparently not.

As far as I can tell, even though I know you meant "It didn't show enough", you basically just told me "Showing things is not showing things", because apparently for you, not showing enough to satisfy you...isn't showing anything at all.

You also told me the film "told us" and didn't "show us", but while I recall a few lines where Sam asks what the shard can do, where he questions his place in events, I do not recall a line where Sam says "I'm going to go on this journey to save Prime so I can grow into a more confident person and recognize my position in this conflict, this learning to believe in myself." I just don't.

[Marvin]

Bad ones, yes.

I've rarely read a review saying I hated this movie but it's really good.

sounds backwards but that's the way taste works. I for example hate a lot of food dishes but there's mostly good.
flim taste shouldn't work any differently. Yet you won't see critics doing so, it's there opinion put out there for everyone, I suppose that's fair but the then it really comes down to "well, do I have the same tastes as this person" which kinda defeats the purpose, because if a film is good it should be a matter of any trained critic saying so and thats it as opposed to let me find one that probably has my taste.

so yes, reviews these days read like an essay along the lines of "I like this, I don't like this" except they don't present it that way.

especially the genre sites(aintitocool...etc)


They aren't a united committee working in tandom to define good taste. Some liked RotF, some thought it was mediocre, some despised it. Don't slander an entire population of professionals simply because you don't agree with some of their member's opinions.

no, there just people that watch movies, like you and I, except because of their position and perhaps job training, if you collect a large amount of their opinions a film can be known as "bad" or "good" before it ever reaches the public(who is was made for)

I'm not in any means slandering an entire population, just the bad ones I assumed that was implied.


A few, sure. Rex Reed, Armond White, Alex Billingdon... Most? Get over yourself and do a little more reading and expand your horizons. Having spent a considerable amount of time with the Vancouver film critics circle, I'd say they are far less cynical and vengeance-seeking than internet fanboys. I can't think of a single one of the members I've encountered who've been "corrupted by their false sense of influence". That's just immature talk for "Waaa! Why won't they validate my taste in cruddy blockbusters!". I doubt you were as ready to string 'em up when the reviews for Star Trek, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Spiderman 2, X2, etc. were coming in.

I unfortunately have read plenty, perhaps I've put a lot of faith into the wrong people. (no more Devin F for me)
I can see alot being less vengeance seeking then internet fanboys, probably the ones that aren't internet fanboys turned reviewers...
it's not just them that leave a bad taste in my mouth personally

yet still, I remember reading a review by ebert(or someone like him) for a bay film when I was younger and it said something along the lines of
"It's quite possible I have never before seen a film that held so much contempt for everyone and everything -- for its audience, for its characters, even for the medium itself."
when I seen it with two different audiences they were laughing and clapping at the end of it all. I found myself asking, "well do these people understand that this film hates them?"

it hates the medium itself...

I personally find that line of thinking very self important, because the medium is not definable thing.
anyways I digress it sounds like we're referring to two different groups of people.

as far as my reaction to the critics that liked the other genre films
I didn't have much to say no, but now that I'm asked sure

those films fall into what they think this season of films should be. In a way ""Waaa! Why won't they validate my taste in cruddy blockbusters!" is right except it's more like


I can see that there's room for all types of films why is it these critics can't?

because they can't turn off their brains?

well then, lets go check out the review for the Hangover, that didn't seem (to me anyway) like a thinking mans film.

my taste in cruddy blockbuster?
the movie is doing well, better then most of the ones you mentioned and yet you define it as my taste in a blockbuster?

That's their opinion. Word to the wise, 30-40+ year old professional journalists may not share the same sense of humour as you.

then what's the point of even printing? so we know what they think

In regards to those particular criticisms, I felt they both are very true in regards to RotF. And I ain't an old out-of-touch critic.


I feel the same way at a dane cook comedy show, it's not for me, yet he's a wildly successful comedian... who knows we might agree on some of the things you find funny and some other things not, the idea of a self important opinion just seems lost on me

not sure where I said anything about "old"

They usually attend pre-screenings. Not with an audience.
I guess that keeps them honest.

Oh, by the way, there was plenty of laughter during Rush Hour 3, Paul Blart and Wild Hogs as well.

yea and i'm sure many critics let us know not to laugh during those as well.:o

It's not a critic's job to base their critism around an audience's potential reaction. They watched the film, layed out their thoughts, wrote their review, and moved on to the next film.

that's just it, not all filmmakers make films for critics, they sometimes make films for the audience.

And, for the gazillionth time, record-setting ticket sales don't equal masterpiece. If that was the case, every major summer blockbuster would be sweeping the awards. Plus, I doubt you'd be throwing down this defense over Twilight's massive weekend haul.

and for the 6th time bad reviews don't equal a bad film.

when it comes to twilight, I'm glad you brought it up.
I would love to see a critic standing out side the theater door greet ever girl as she walks out and tell her she didn't like the experience.

cause that's what it seems they're doing.
how dare something be successful without their approval..:whatever:

all jokes aside that was my point in all this, I've never said anything about ticket sales equaling good art
it equals an enjoyable movie

the same way the massive sales of ice cream don't equal "good food"

all I said was among a tirade of critics mostly saying the same things
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen/

the audience reactions seem to prove otherwise, what is funny, what is entertaining?

and most importantly, what is worth an individual's money? the praise of someone somewhere that you don't know telling you so?

it's a system in place to protect the general public from money hungry executives and that's good, but on a case by case basis it fails

but hey, that's my "critical" opinion

a few reviews I feel like pointing out

"Michael Bay is an abstract artist... all of that hardware flying around the screen...are simply blobs of light and shadow...like paint spattered on a canvas by Jackson Pollack."
-Steve Biodrowski

the pollack reference seems fitting for he got the same treatment..

"Put in your earplugs and grab the aspirin. Enjoyable for the only the easiest to please 10-year-old boys; this deafening, tiresome epic is a skull-splitting hot mess for everyone else. "
-Diva Velez

I've been called worse things, funny enough the series was intended for 10 year old boys so perhaps all is well

"Sure it could have been a little more critic-friendly, a little more intellectual, maybe even a little less silly, but Michael Bay is first and foremost an entertainer and in my opinion he once again gets the job done. "
-Danny Minton

intent.

[Godman]

this are to me movies that were made for entertainment and nothing deep.

I just re watched all the Indy movies and they did have depth as i watch them in an older mind frame as did movies like back to the future tho time travel movies are always contradictions within themselves. Predator was a very creative movie and has not had nothing to that style of creativity since.

[dark_b]

predator had f.... Arnold in the jungle fighting an alien. it was meant to entertain people.
and in 20 years some people will say the same for TF.

[AnorexicBatman]

At least the Predator didn't have the Predator pull his pants down and sodomize his victims
Or have Dutch and Jesse Ventura compare dick sizes
Or have the girl flash her boobies...

These are things Bay would have done...

[Balthus Dire]

Or have Dutch and Jesse Ventura compare dick sizes


That would've been a scene for the ages!

[Marvin]

At least the Predator didn't have the Predator pull his pants down and sodomize his victims
Or have Dutch and Jesse Ventura compare dick sizes
Or have the girl flash her boobies...

These are things Bay would have done...

where was any of that pearl harbour or even the island

people seem to think they have the mans intent pegged down for every film from here on out

that's like saying if the farley(sp) brothers every take over the alien franchise it's going to be really funny and one of the aliens will have a chipped tooth..etc

for instance bay produce many a horror remake and apart from having hot actors and high production value you wouldn't know bay had any involvment, but then again he's just producing.

[AnorexicBatman]

I'll admit I exaggerated but still
Also, Bay produces horror movies?

Huh, that makes sense...

[AnorexicBatman]

I'll admit I exaggerated but still
Also, Bay produces horror movies?

Huh, that makes sense...

[GhostPoet]

I have a love/hate relationship with the movie...there were MANY great scenes...mixed with some really bad scenes. I'm not sure if the good or bad outweigh each other or if it's pretty equal.

Maybe it's like Return of the Jedi for me...the great scenes make me want to watch it and "survive" the bad scenes.

[AnorexicBatman]

How dare you compare this to Return Of The Jedi?

[BlackLantern]

How dare you compare this to Return Of The Jedi?

because Ewoks suck??


I don't think its a fair comparison at all

[CelticPredator]

He said "Its like" in the vain that he has the same feelings with the film.

[GhostPoet]

How dare you compare this to Return Of The Jedi?

Because Boba Fett get's killed like a punk just because of a silly moment with Han Solo.

Ewoks defeat the Empires most elite soldiers with rocks and sticks.

Chewbacca does a Tarzan call while swinging onto an AT-ST, there he and some Ewoks manage to subdue soldiers who are wearing helmets by hitting them on said helmets with sticks.

It had A LOT of silly moments....a lot of moments I hated...and yet plenty of great moments too.

[dark_b]

i think a lot of people found Ewoks funny. but at the end of the day they loved the moments with Vader and Luke.

[Balthus Dire]

Getting off topic, but that final battle between Vader and Luke with the dolly shot behind the stairs as they fight is one of my favourite scenes of all time. That music sends chills down my spine.

Best lightsaber fight out of all 6 films.

[Max Newlander]

I remember a time when directors didn't make movies to fit the audience level of thinking and or entertainment values, but forced us to dive into their worlds regardless with such depth of movies as E.T., Flight Of The Navigator, Indiana Jones, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator, Predator, Star Wars, Ghost Busters, Back to The Future, Goonies, Gremlins, Jurassic Park, 007...etc. All movies with very high value of creativity and none were remakes or adaptations of old movies or cartoons. All these movies were in with the times but made memorable characters and moments never to be duplicated.

The last major BO movie where the director forced the audience into their world and not the other way around where they cater their direction towards what the audience may think is HIP or in fashion was "THE MATRIX" which in a movie since was borrowing ideas here and there but remained original.. Made tons of money but remained extremely smart and had layers of depth still discussed today.

Speed Racer had more thought provoking ideas and ideals than Transformers though many slept on such a charismatic movie with such high entertainment value.

Casino Royale was when a director gets out the safe zone and goes the distance making a movie HE felt was important to the character and respected universe of that theme. Quantum Of Solace is when the studio decides to cater to the audience which was still a good movie, but was sheer WOW moment type entertainment and not a fully fleshed out FILM.

Everything meant something in movies of old, but movies like Transformers and even the last Indie which have great IDEAS, but too many forced characters and concepts to add. Random scenes to make the dumb founded and nullified "LIL WAYNE" generation say "cool".


As much as many hated the 2003 HULK and claimed the new one was more entertaining prove my theory. Ang Lee didn't cater to the audience and made an engaging drama which had some silly scenes u can tell the studio thought a summer block buster MUST have. If Ang was given FULL control we wouldn't have had Hulk dogs etc and remained with an epic drama that hulk was meant to be. The new one took out any idea of a fleshed out universe and assumed the audience was up on things and just started the M. Bay style of motion pictures.

Funny enough that the first Hulk made just as much as the newer one and for such a long dramatic take on a comic book icon, wasn't too shabby and critics acknowledged it with high regard. Where as the newer Hulk felt crammed with quick Summer block buster quips.

We are now in an age where creative geniuses as Michael Jackson are mourned more than celebrated by the world because we know the end of a great era has officially announced it's self where the current music, movies, and sports are not as engaging, creative, INNOVATIVE, and enthralling as they once were.

This is an excellent post, which I fully agree with.

The modern take on the "Summer Blockbuster" by Hollywood studio's seems to equal-LAZY, lazy story telling, thanks to atrocious scripts, poor character development (again lazy) and remakes (lazy). The creativeness we seen at the start of the popcorn movie era seems to have been lost. There pretty much ain't any likability to modern hollywood blockbusters anymore. Maybe I'm being nostalgic, maybe my opinion is wrong but this is how I see it.

CGI is the main issue, its seems to me the studio's want to dazzle the public with out of this world effects hoping it distracts from the point that the movies are pretty shallow and weak on the actually entertainment factor. I'm quickly getting fed up with OTT CGI overload.

Transformers-ROTF is a prime (no pun) example of the feel and look of the modern blockbuster. Its lazy film making with something completely unlikable about it. IMO of course.

"Creativity" seems to be a lost skill in the process of making blockbusters at present.

Lets look at character development with a cracking script and story, then use CGI/effects to enhance that foundation (all the above quoted movies have this), then we "all" might actually start enjoying the big summer movie experience again.

P.S. I also wish that we could get over the obsession of GIANT ROBOTS/Machines trying to destroy mankind. Transformers 1/2, Matrix 2/3, Terminator Salvation, WOTW etc etc....

Just my opinion though ;-)

[craigdbfan]

Getting off topic, but that final battle between Vader and Luke with the dolly shot behind the stairs as they fight is one of my favourite scenes of all time. That music sends chills down my spine.

Best lightsaber fight out of all 6 films.

The music during that scene is great too. "A Jedi's Fury" playing in the background fit so well with the footage.

[SUPER SAIYAN D]

I remember a time when directors didn't make movies to fit the audience level of thinking and or entertainment values, but forced us to dive into their worlds regardless with such depth of movies as E.T., Flight Of The Navigator, Indiana Jones, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator, Predator, Star Wars, Ghost Busters, Back to The Future, Goonies, Gremlins, Jurassic Park, 007...etc. All movies with very high value of creativity and none were remakes or adaptations of old movies or cartoons. All these movies were in with the times but made memorable characters and moments never to be duplicated.

The last major BO movie where the director forced the audience into their world and not the other way around where they cater their direction towards what the audience may think is HIP or in fashion was "THE MATRIX" which in a movie since was borrowing ideas here and there but remained original.. Made tons of money but remained extremely smart and had layers of depth still discussed today.

Speed Racer had more thought provoking ideas and ideals than Transformers though many slept on such a charismatic movie with such high entertainment value.

Casino Royale was when a director gets out the safe zone and goes the distance making a movie HE felt was important to the character and respected universe of that theme. Quantum Of Solace is when the studio decides to cater to the audience which was still a good movie, but was sheer WOW moment type entertainment and not a fully fleshed out FILM.

Everything meant something in movies of old, but movies like Transformers and even the last Indie which have great IDEAS, but too many forced characters and concepts to add. Random scenes to make the dumb founded and nullified "LIL WAYNE" generation say "cool".


As much as many hated the 2003 HULK and claimed the new one was more entertaining prove my theory. Ang Lee didn't cater to the audience and made an engaging drama which had some silly scenes u can tell the studio thought a summer block buster MUST have. If Ang was given FULL control we wouldn't have had Hulk dogs etc and remained with an epic drama that hulk was meant to be. The new one took out any idea of a fleshed out universe and assumed the audience was up on things and just started the M. Bay style of motion pictures.

Funny enough that the first Hulk made just as much as the newer one and for such a long dramatic take on a comic book icon, wasn't too shabby and critics acknowledged it with high regard. Where as the newer Hulk felt crammed with quick Summer block buster quips.

We are now in an age where creative geniuses as Michael Jackson are mourned more than celebrated by the world because we know the end of a great era has officially announced it's self where the current music, movies, and sports are not as engaging, creative, INNOVATIVE, and enthralling as they once were.

Damn, that was BRILLIANT !!!! I agree with everyting you said 100% !!!!

[Balthus Dire]

I'll agree that Hollywood sucks right now, but I will respectfully disagree on 2003 HULK being anything more than a boring piece of crap.

[Marvin]

This is an excellent post, which I fully agree with.

The modern take on the "Summer Blockbuster" by Hollywood studio's seems to equal-LAZY, lazy story telling, thanks to atrocious scripts, poor character development (again lazy) and remakes (lazy). The creativeness we seen at the start of the popcorn movie era seems to have been lost. There pretty much ain't any likability to modern hollywood blockbusters anymore. Maybe I'm being nostalgic, maybe my opinion is wrong but this is how I see it.

CGI is the main issue, its seems to me the studio's want to dazzle the public with out of this world effects hoping it distracts from the point that the movies are pretty shallow and weak on the actually entertainment factor. I'm quickly getting fed up with OTT CGI overload.

Transformers-ROTF is a prime (no pun) example of the feel and look of the modern blockbuster. Its lazy film making with something completely unlikable about it. IMO of course.

"Creativity" seems to be a lost skill in the process of making blockbusters at present.

Lets look at character development with a cracking script and story, then use CGI/effects to enhance that foundation (all the above quoted movies have this), then we "all" might actually start enjoying the big summer movie experience again.

P.S. I also wish that we could get over the obsession of GIANT ROBOTS/Machines trying to destroy mankind. Transformers 1/2, Matrix 2/3, Terminator Salvation, WOTW etc etc....

Just my opinion though ;-)

I don't think anyone involved in making the transformers movie possible deserve to be called lazy

not one

without getting too much into a retort

I believe terminator and the matrix about about artificial intelligence

and transformers and wotw are about aliens (star trek too)

how many films are about pesky evil humans?
not the biggest movies of the past year

[Blackman]

OT: but did anybody hear Fox's comments about the movie?

http://my.spill.com/profiles/blog/show?id=947994:BlogPost:1416306

[BlackLantern]

it takes months for CGI effects to be fully rendered, Optimus Prime had more than 50 different people working on him....I don't think they are lazy

[BlackLantern]

This is an excellent post, which I fully agree with.

The modern take on the "Summer Blockbuster" by Hollywood studio's seems to equal-LAZY, lazy story telling, thanks to atrocious scripts, poor character development (again lazy) and remakes (lazy). The creativeness we seen at the start of the popcorn movie era seems to have been lost. There pretty much ain't any likability to modern hollywood blockbusters anymore. Maybe I'm being nostalgic, maybe my opinion is wrong but this is how I see it.

CGI is the main issue, its seems to me the studio's want to dazzle the public with out of this world effects hoping it distracts from the point that the movies are pretty shallow and weak on the actually entertainment factor. I'm quickly getting fed up with OTT CGI overload.

Transformers-ROTF is a prime (no pun) example of the feel and look of the modern blockbuster. Its lazy film making with something completely unlikable about it. IMO of course.

"Creativity" seems to be a lost skill in the process of making blockbusters at present.

Lets look at character development with a cracking script and story, then use CGI/effects to enhance that foundation (all the above quoted movies have this), then we "all" might actually start enjoying the big summer movie experience again.

P.S. I also wish that we could get over the obsession of GIANT ROBOTS/Machines trying to destroy mankind. Transformers 1/2, Matrix 2/3, Terminator Salvation, WOTW etc etc....

Just my opinion though ;-)

but they're successful....wildily successful...and Hollywood, especially in these tough times, are all about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Creativity doesn't pay the rent, 400 Million dollar gross in 6 days does

[Max Newlander]

I don't think anyone involved in making the transformers movie possible deserve to be called lazy

not one

without getting too much into a retort

I believe terminator and the matrix about about artificial intelligence

and transformers and wotw are about aliens (star trek too)

how many films are about pesky evil humans?
not the biggest movies of the past year

Don't think you are getting my point about being "Lazy". I'm not talking about the amount of hard graft or the absolute literal meaning...but anyway.

As for Aliens/robots/A.I, well thats being slightly pedantic. Again, considering you didn't understand what I meant by "lazy", I'm not surprised with this response.

[AnorexicBatman]

Tell that to guys like Nolan, Snyder and Jackson...
Their CREATIVITY does pay the rent...

It's an ethical issue really...
Bay takes the low road...

[Marvin]

[QUOTE=Godman;17133562]I remember a time when directors didn't make movies to fit the audience level of thinking and or entertainment values, but forced us to dive into their worlds regardless with such depth of movies as E.T., Flight Of The Navigator, Indiana Jones, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Robocop, Terminator, Predator, Star Wars, Ghost Busters, Back to The Future, Goonies, Gremlins, Jurassic Park, 007...etc. All movies with very high value of creativity and none were remakes or adaptations of old movies or cartoons. All these movies were in with the times but made memorable characters and moments never to be duplicated.

I didn't know those were all summer releases, kudos

don't really see how those are any more "creative" than the "summer" fare this year
but thats just me.

Speed Racer had more thought provoking ideas and ideals than Transformers though many slept on such a charismatic movie with such high entertainment value.

thought provoking ideas?
I liked speed racer for what it was attempting,the Wbros can be thought provoking when they want to they've proven that, speed racer was a simple movie about a kid doing laps around a zanny track in a flashy car chasing the memory of his brother with caricatures of a family as supporting characters

the idea of the the all spark, and the creatures it gives life too debating for the freedom of other sentient life has more "thought" too it than speed racer.


Casino Royale was when a director gets out the safe zone and goes the distance making a movie HE felt was important to the character and respected universe of that theme. Quantum Of Solace is when the studio decides to cater to the audience which was still a good movie, but was sheer WOW moment type entertainment and not a fully fleshed out FILM.

martin campbell(golden eye) can make a cool/good movie whom ever did QOS the guy from monsters ball I believe was out of his element.
but you may be onto something

Everything meant something in movies of old, but movies like Transformers and even the last Indie which have great IDEAS, but too many forced characters and concepts to add. Random scenes to make the dumb founded and nullified "LIL WAYNE" generation say "cool".

it's safe to say the newer movies have something for everyone
I've yet to see indy4 but it can't be all "dumb"

and by older movies you can't possibly be talking about all films released more then 10 years ago..


As much as many hated the 2003 HULK and claimed the new one was more entertaining prove my theory. Ang Lee didn't cater to the audience and made an engaging drama which had some silly scenes u can tell the studio thought a summer block buster MUST have. If Ang was given FULL control we wouldn't have had Hulk dogs etc and remained with an epic drama that hulk was meant to be. The new one took out any idea of a fleshed out universe and assumed the audience was up on things and just started the M. Bay style of motion pictures.

Funny enough that the first Hulk made just as much as the newer one and for such a long dramatic take on a comic book icon, wasn't too shabby and critics acknowledged it with high regard. Where as the newer Hulk felt crammed with quick Summer block buster quips.

this is really all I wanted to respond to
I fought for the first hulk(the novel is a must read) I see the point you are trying to make but at the same time it could be said that Mr. Lee

proud and confident after all the critical praise he was receiving ala previous films, made a movie too wrapped in it's own attempt at being intrinsic that it couldn't connect with it's audience
the people that made hulk what he is today didn't do it to see hulk punching clouds in live action.

the newer hulk proved one thing, the hulk is not as interesting as he used to be.

you can't just compare movies like that and then claim they fall into your theory

that's like saying TDK made more then Iron man because it was more serious
well then how did Iron man make more then Batman Begins?

there are other factors at play

both hulks made about the same amount of money does that mean Angs was better?
if anything if angs was so good the sequel would have made twice as much.(sequels do that)

We are now in an age where creative geniuses as Michael Jackson are mourned more than celebrated by the world because we know the end of a great era has officially announced it's self where the current music, movies, and sports are not as engaging, creative, INNOVATIVE, and enthralling as they once were.

compared to the 17th century all art has "sold out"

ten years ago hollywood was doing what it's doing now, releasing 2 gambles for every 6 films

sometime they pay off sometimes you get lady in the water.

[Balthus Dire]

Tell that to guys like Nolan, Snyder and Jackson...
Their CREATIVITY does pay the rent...

It's an ethical issue really...
Bay takes the low road...


Because he decided to make different films?? That's such a ridiculous argument. So every director in Hollywood should be just like Darren Aronofsky? Why, because he makes thoughtful films? That makes him "better"?

Michael Bay makes action films where **** blows up. That's what he likes, that's what he's good at, and that's what he's known for. Just because they aren't Oscar worthy masterpieces that make you cry yourself to sleep at how "beautiful" they are doesn't make him less of a film maker. It's a career choice.

Not everyone has the same tastes and not everyone wants to make the same types of movies. It's hardly a "low road". Give me a break.

[CelticPredator]

If you think Bay is such an idiot, I dare you to rig an action scene like he does. I hate that argument, but I feel it is nessesary here.

Directing Action is one of the hardest things to do. Esp action on this scale.

[Marvin]

Don't think you are getting my point about being "Lazy". I'm not talking about the amount of hard graft or the absolute literal meaning...but anyway.

As for Aliens/robots/A.I, well thats being slightly pedantic. Again, considering you didn't understand what I meant by "lazy", I'm not surprised with this response.

I understood it perfectly

I just hope you appreciate how much work goes into these films but all parties involved

yes even the writers, it's so easy for us to sit here and say ridiculous things like that but I'm in the industry and when you animate a character at 24 frame a second you don't really feel like seeing some snobs on forums talking about how lazy flim makers are.

as far as what I believe you meant, I still wouldn't call Transformers lazy.
creative laziness when it comes to big films is a loose concept at best

what's so lazy about knowing what your audience wants and giving it to them
would you call the people behind 40 year old virgin "lazy" because they made a simple film that played well to it's audience?
damn them for not making it 40 year old virgin meets blade runner

Transformers ROTF has alot to it, with alot of money at stake which mean execs have a tight noose around the writers necks
it's not the most engrossing story but like 40 year old virgin, it has an audience and it entertains them.

I would love to see how the writer of obama's speeches does at a comedy show

or how richard pryor's writers do at a public adress

you don't need to make something overly smart just to impress critics, it needs to entertain it's audience first and foremost.

I could write a lazy TF script if you really need a demonstration of the fact.

pedantic or not, to say they are all simply movies about robots is wonderfully general.
(would you put iron man in that pool as well?)

[Marvin]

Tell that to guys like Nolan, Snyder and Jackson...
Their CREATIVITY does pay the rent...

It's an ethical issue really...
Bay takes the low road...

if it wasn't for that low road, the working man would only have classical symphony to listen to

say good bye to the simple hyms of Springstein

[BlackLantern]

Because he decided to make different films?? That's such a ridiculous argument. So every director in Hollywood should be just like Darren Aronofsky? Why, because he makes thoughtful films? That makes him "better"?

Michael Bay makes action films where **** blows up. That's what he likes, that's what he's good at, and that's what he's known for. Just because they aren't Oscar worthy masterpieces that make you cry yourself to sleep at how "beautiful" they are doesn't make him less of a film maker. It's a career choice.

Not everyone has the same tastes and not everyone wants to make the same types of movies. It's hardly a "low road". Give me a break.

agreed.....

ethics?? really??? is that the conversation we're having now?? so you didn't like the movie...fine...so based on your opinion of the film or other films directed by Michael Bay, he is an unethical person??? are you ****ting me?? Taking a bribe...yes thats unethical, Cheating on your significant other...yes thats unethical....making a movie you don't like is a personal taste issue

helpful hint: just because YOU don't like a movie, doesn't make it a BAD movie

[dark_b]

If you think Bay is such an idiot, I dare you to rig an action scene like he does. I hate that argument, but I feel it is nessesary here.

Directing Action is one of the hardest things to do. Esp action on this scale.please lets not start with the ''then do it yourself'' :csad:

[CelticPredator]

I didnt like The Godfather. Sue me. But I dont think it's a BAD movie in anyway shape or form. It's a fantastic movie...I just dont like mafia films is all.

[CelticPredator]

please lets not start with the ''then do it yourself'' :csad:

Nope. I will say this. Why? Because, I dont know why people trash action directors for doing amazing action.

[Firm]

Nothing amazing, not bad.
Going in to the cinema I had a clear vision in my head "this is not an inteligent movie, it's action - don't expect amazing writing, it's just a fun movie", I was right. Orderd my popcorn, payed for the ticket, sat down and started watching. Loved the beginning, loved the action scenes, loved Megan, Bee and even Shia wasn't annoying. This movie had some stupid/ridiculous scenes but what can you expect? It's Michael Bay + Transformers. It was enjoyable, over the top, in some parts senceless but I really had fun watching it

[nintendo nerd]

Nope. I will say this. Why? Because, I dont know why people trash action directors for doing amazing action.

Yes, we had amazing action. But a terrible story. IMO. TF 1 did have a decent story.

[Nathan]

The problem is really that he had too much control. I'm reading right now an old Q&A from the writers of the Movie, where they say Sunstreaker and Sideswipe where supposed to have the roles of the Twins. But bay axed Sunstreaker and had the idea with Skids and Mudflap. Just let him film all the explosions, but keep him the **** away from the script.

[Marvin]

The problem is really that he had too much control. I'm reading right now an old Q&A from the writers of the Movie, where they say Sunstreaker and Sideswipe where supposed to have the roles of the Twins. But bay axed Sunstreaker and had the idea with Skids and Mudflap. Just let him film all the explosions, but keep him the **** away from the script.

personally I'm not a fan of the twins tho I can see there appeal from the younger perspective

honestly I can't see those scenes where the twins were present and walking around with shia being deep character pieces that would have saved the film had it been sideswipe and sunstreaker in their stead.

it no doubt would have been more simpleton robot talk the likes of which Iron hide never ceases to amaze us with

all it really would have improved is the devastator scene, but hey, michael loves the kids
and the kids love slapstick, you can't rip off everyone's face.

[Saint]

Except that since he'd no longer have anything to do with the autobots, he'd no longer, after spending the film with them, have anything to do with them, and not be a committed part of their future, so something would have changed, yes? I mean, instead of having a bunch of transforming robot warriors around him, he'd have none. That strikes me as a bit of a difference in one's existence.
Which would amount to one thing: in the six seconds that serve as the film's denouement, Sam would be standing alone instead of standing with Optimus. The promise of change to come is worth something, sure, but you've been trying to sell me on the relevance of Sam's story in the body of the film--but besides that six seconds, it isn't there. That conflict does not drive the film, and it probably should have.

I feel that his decision to become involved in the Transformers conflict is the beginning of his character development, and the ongoing increasing degrees of involvement he undergoes are his character developing more and more into the person who is a part of the Autobots world.
If I expected any level of competent follow through, that might be enough for me. But I don't.

Also, even had Sam ultimately decided that he wanted nothing more to do with the Autobots or their war, he would still have undergone character development as a person, wouldn't he, as he tests his limits, discovers what he's capable of, etc?
I'm not sure I follow you entirely.

I don't think this is a semantic trap. I believe people have a choice in life as to what their actions are. I believe there are good choices and bad choices and gray areas, but I do believe people have a choice in terms of their actions. Sam didn't know the stakes at the beginning, he only knew the Decepticons wanted him for something. After Prime's death, Sam didn't have to find out what, or the extent of that, and he certainly didn't have to go on a globetrotting quest of unraveling clues to raise Prime from the dead. He could have just waited for the Decepticons to come for him, or hidden and hoped they wouldn't find him, or run. Like many people do when adversity strikes. But he didn't. He chose not to.
But not necessarily as a matter of principle. It could have easily been a matter of practicality. He already new he had information that was important somehow, and he knew that if the Decepticon's wanted it, it was probably to do something that wouldn't be good for him in the long run.

As far as I can tell, even though I know you meant "It didn't show enough", you basically just told me "Showing things is not showing things", because apparently for you, not showing enough to satisfy you...isn't showing anything at all.
I meant exactly what I said: if you show someone a tree, and you show someone paper, you haven't shown that person that paper is made from trees. You've shown them something, but not enough to actually qualify as showing them that paper comes from trees. You've only told them that. That's how the film feels to me.

[craigdbfan]

The problem is really that he had too much control. I'm reading right now an old Q&A from the writers of the Movie, where they say Sunstreaker and Sideswipe where supposed to have the roles of the Twins. But bay axed Sunstreaker and had the idea with Skids and Mudflap. Just let him film all the explosions, but keep him the **** away from the script.

And someone in the boards said (forget who) to stop milking the writer strike. :whatever:

If Bay didn't have so much time to sit around and tweak with the script we could have gotten more Sideswipe. :cmad:

[Jake Cassidy]

I'm reading right now an old Q&A from the writers of the Movie, where they say Sunstreaker and Sideswipe where supposed to have the roles of the Twins.

Damn. That would've been so ****in' cool. :csad:

Where are you reading this? :yay:

[Nathan]

http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/236275-botcon-2009-movie-q-session.html

[Godman]

predator had f.... Arnold in the jungle fighting an alien. it was meant to entertain people.
and in 20 years some people will say the same for TF.

give me one plot hole in Predator and something in the movie that served no purpose but to better the movie? It had humor but it was not an action comedy. It was a action thriller which transformers should have been action SCI FI. It has as much humor as rush hour for real. Hell even as much as Bad Boys and those are sitcom actors turn hollywood. Transformers was never to be that. It actually has some depth to it in the comics and cartoon.

My point again is give me something that is just plain stupid in Predator that was not great to the story arch??? Predator was not a stupid movie and was not written as so.

[BlackLantern]

it makes me just a little happy on the inside knowing that you "real" Transformers fans will never truly get what you want....you can go on and on about the comics did this, the cartoon did that....but at the end of the day, what Hasbro says goes....its their property and when their 2 films have now made a combined $1 Billion dollars....no one cares about the .1% angry internet fanboys who call Bay the devil....go in your backyard and make a fanfilm with your action figures...the Academy is waiting

[knowsbleed]

I consider myself a "real" Transformers fan... posters who knew me from the first movie's followings know how much I ranted about Bay... but oh well. I have to live with what we have and what we have seemed pretty enjoyable to me this time around. I've come to accept and even like what Bay has created for us... though of course not completely. It's just another incarnation of the Transformers... a franchise that has been changing for the past 25 years and is now stronger than ever thanks to these movies.

But that's just plain ol' being a big meano, BL. I'll reserve a punch in the nuts for you when I see you.

[Marvin]

I consider myself a "real" Transformers fan... posters who knew me from the first movie's followings know how much I ranted about Bay... but oh well. I have to live with what we have and what we have seemed pretty enjoyable to me this time around. I've come to accept and even like what Bay has created for us... though of course not completely. It's just another incarnation of the Transformers... a franchise that has been changing for the past 25 years and is now stronger than ever thanks to these movies.

But that's just plain ol' being a big meano, BL. I'll reserve a punch in the nuts for you when I see you.

well said dude

just another incarnation, bays incarnation for this decade, that's all

[BlackLantern]

sorry then knowsbleed...and you're right...there have been MANY different incarnations and this is just one...but it seems to be super important to some people so it MUST be taken seriously....Im surprised Gore Vidal wasn't commissioned to write the script

[knowsbleed]

Well, it would be nice if it could be handled with tongue in cheek humor and still be a serious sci fi flick. The potential is there... but the director doesn't want, nor really need, to go that route. He wanted big fun... and that's what we got. Though a little heavy on the military propaganda (and I'm in the military).

I wouldn't mind a Star Trek type movie that is both fun and smart though. I still do believe that there is enough Transformers lore to formulate a smart script without making it too serious for non-fans to like.

[Marvin]

I just don't get what the big deal with making a straight up TF is

it's only as big as it is because the producers made it as appealing to as many people as they have
big enough to make as much as it did(without actor deaths)

I mean is TF really that much better then hulk as far as character lore?
because hulk was played straight and it did so so

meh, I think it could be better but it doesnt' keep me up as night the way it seems to others

I actually believe it's because the cool guy with the nice car that called us nerds in high school took over the property and made it his own

if only it was Raimi.

[knowsbleed]

I don't even see it as a Bay vs the fans type deal anymore... now it's just a "this is Transformers now" situation. I'm anxious to see if they bring more into the 3rd movie as they brought more into this movie than the first one. Or will it have At World's End-itis?

[BlackLantern]

raimi?? why?? so in the third film he can ass rape the franchise beyond recognition??

[knowsbleed]

I'd seriously give my left nut for Abrams to direct the 3rd.




I doubt that anybody would want to barter though.

[Marvin]

raimi?? why?? so in the third film he can ass rape the franchise beyond recognition??

because his movies look so bad the the stories shine through, and that's what TF needs right now:yay:

[Marvin]

I'd seriously give my left nut for Abrams to direct the 3rd.


I doubt that anybody would want to barter though.

he's pretty much the only person who could pull it off

then again, he wrote armageddon
and that funky superman script.

[BlackLantern]

the 402 Million its made so far don't indicate it needs any "shining through"...you all can be as cynical as you want about box office and how money doesnt = quality, but this thing is making ****loads of money....its making cocaine cartel money...I heard Bay is going to buy a jetpack....made of platinum

[knowsbleed]

he's pretty much the only person who could pull it off

then again, he wrote armageddon
and that funky superman script.

I loved Armageddon :o


and he's not credited for SR.

[Marvin]

I loved Armageddon :o


and he's not credited for SR.

it served it's purpose, but it's the film I believe bay gets it the worst for

an no, not SR
the other superman that sent production back to the drawing board, the one where he carried his suit in a can or worms or somthing

[Balthus Dire]

the other superman that sent production back to the drawing board, the one where he carried his suit in a can or worms or somthing

Hahaha what?? I must hear more of this...

[BlackLantern]

yea and Brainiac had polar bear bodyguards and a giant spider...

[Balthus Dire]

yea and Brainiac had polar bear bodyguards and a giant spider...

Yeah I heard about that, but I never heard about him carrying his suit in a can of worms hahahahaha that's so damn funny...

[Marvin]

Hahaha what?? I must hear more of this...

you'd have to search for it over at ain't it cool news, moriarty reviewed it and the outcry actually made it to the studio a few years back

it's pretty old news but it happend.

[Avangarde]

I have been holding off from doing a review until I watched it for a second time, hoping it would change my opinion, unfortunately it didn't.

The start of the movie was good, it was well paced, had great action, and set the whole premise for the movie with the Decepticons attempting to regroup and the Autobots making a life for themselves on Earth. All the while the human centered characters were continuing with life as business as usual with school, work, and relationships. I enjoyed how the Decepticons went about their revival, the addition of Soundwave was perfect for the role of surveillance/strategist. Everything was moving along well up until the end of the forest battle, which was by far one of the best fight scenes I have ever seen. However things went downhill from there. Loosing Prime for pretty much the last half of the movie was stupid, one of the only robots that we could relate to was gone and I felt the movie become scattered. Bumblebee was reduced down to a dog on a leash, pathetic really when he was meant to bridge the gap between the humans and the robots. In the blink of an eye everyone is in Egypt looking for the Matrix with the help of Jetfire, I liked the idea of the Seekers laying dormant around Earth, makes you wonder who else could be in hiding that may be used in the future. Just about everything in the second half of the movie was rubbish, the fight sequences were great to watch, but that doesn't make up for the lack of character development, and weak plot filled with holes.

This movie I felt was worse then the first, the first had heart and, while not great, some form of development in the characters. I'm not sure where the writers were trying to take this, perhaps Bays influence on the script is what hurt it. If there is a third (which I'm sure will be) I hope the writers are left alone to make the story, Bay clearly has no idea of structure and balance for characters. A shame really, I was hoping this would be closer to "my" Transformers. :csad:

4/10

[BlackLantern]

it was something like, the suit was different parts or a living organism that attached to him or something

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_%28film_series%29#Proposals_for_fifth_fil m

some proposals for Superman films - post Superman IV

[AnorexicBatman]

It's no longer about personal opinion. It's no longer about fanboys *****ing.
The way I see it, Bay has made a mockery of the industry

He has proved that once and for all that you do NOT need talent to be a successful director in Hollywood. You just need to have tons of cash from gullible producers (Asteroid's movie? really? In place of METAL GEAR SOLID starring Bat-Bale?) and appeal to the lowest and most stupidest demographic since they seem to be in abundance

Megan Fox was right. Bay has no right to call her out on bashing the movie

[Avangarde]

Megan Fox was right. Bay has no right to call her out on bashing the movie

For real?

[AnorexicBatman]

Yup. I so want to give her a nice big platonic hug!

[Avangarde]

Kudos to Megan then, I'm glad she's not one of those "just stand there and look pretty" actors. She did get a pretty mediocre role for TF2, she's probably feels like it was a step back from the first movie.

[The Original Bamfer]

Granted, she's not a good actress, but she has a point - the film's not about that. Bay's being the real diva in all of this, spouting out all of that 'I created you!' ********. :down

[BlackLantern]

good on her for making her feelings known, but Im sure if Bay really thought anyone would take her seriously, he has enough pull to see that she doesn't do anything more than a shampoo commercial from here on out....I did like her in 'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People'...a lot of people crap on it, but I like that movie

[Marvin]

It's no longer about personal opinion. It's no longer about fanboys *****ing.
The way I see it, Bay has made a mockery of the industry

He has proved that once and for all that you do NOT need talent to be a successful director in Hollywood. You just need to have tons of cash from gullible producers (Asteroid's movie? really? In place of METAL GEAR SOLID starring Bat-Bale?) and appeal to the lowest and most stupidest demographic since they seem to be in abundance

Megan Fox was right. Bay has no right to call her out on bashing the movie

is it because the film is so big, and or doing so well?

because it seems that when other people make an ok fun movie about nothing.. cough ratner, nothing happens

but this bay s#%t, always brings out the fight in people.

he made a fun movie for kids, based a toy line with the name hasbro in the opening credits and now he's making a mockery of the industry?

I'm very curious how bay is the son of the devil and this stuff

0UgCrZfjPsA&feature=related

just goes down as a fun movie no one really talks about

megan fox, decided to call this movie out on it's lack of acting material, that's fine, improv isn't the easiest thing but give maggie gylenhall(sp) an oscar for DK.

I wonder how the actors in disaster movie feel about their roles and still, lack of careers

everyone starts somewhere, even will smith and last I checked he's looking to come back for Bad boys 3

get some perspective, even james earl jones does fun movies form time to time, he donesn't turn around and belittle them to look smart because the public thinks he's just another pretty face

[Sarge 2.0]

the 402 Million its made so far don't indicate it needs any "shining through"...you all can be as cynical as you want about box office and how money doesnt = quality, but this thing is making ****loads of money....its making cocaine cartel money...I heard Bay is going to buy a jetpack....made of platinum
And yet money still does not equal quality.

[Sarge 2.0]

is it because the film is so big, and or doing so well?

because it seems that when other people make an ok fun movie about nothing.. cough ratner, nothing happens

but this bay s#%t, always brings out the fight in people.

he made a fun movie for kids, based a toy line with the name hasbro in the opening credits and now he's making a mockery of the industry?

I'm very curious how bay is the son of the devil and this stuff

0UgCrZfjPsA&feature=related

just goes down as a fun movie no one really talks about

megan fox, decided to call this movie out on it's lack of acting material, that's fine, improv isn't the easiest thing but give maggie gylenhall(sp) an oscar for DK.

I wonder how the actors in disaster movie feel about their roles and still, lack of careers

everyone starts somewhere, even will smith and last I checked he's looking to come back for Bad boys 3

get some perspective, even james earl jones does fun movies form time to time, he donesn't turn around and belittle them to look smart because the public thinks he's just another pretty faceYou would be taken more seriously if you could come up with strong, articulate points. Not that you would be right if you were even the slightest bit articulate, but it would make you look a little more credible.

Only a little though.

[Balthus Dire]

It's no longer about personal opinion. It's no longer about fanboys *****ing.
The way I see it, Bay has made a mockery of the industry

He has proved that once and for all that you do NOT need talent to be a successful director in Hollywood. You just need to have tons of cash from gullible producers (Asteroid's movie? really? In place of METAL GEAR SOLID starring Bat-Bale?) and appeal to the lowest and most stupidest demographic since they seem to be in abundance

Megan Fox was right. Bay has no right to call her out on bashing the movie


Yes, you are so right. Michael Bay is single handedly responsible for the downfall of "creative" Hollywood. It was all a part of his master plan to create action-packed summer blockbusters that would slowly degrade society over years and years until they would eventually be "dumb" enough to enjoy Transformers and he could spring his master trap once and for all with Transformers 2. Because according to you, anyone who likes Transformers 2 is "an idiot". :whatever:

I think this is like the third time I've said this to you, but I'll say it again: give me a break.

[Marvin]

You would be taken more seriously if you could come up with strong, articulate points. Not that you would be right if you were even the slightest bit articulate, but it would make you look a little more credible.

Only a little though.

1. I don't find the need to pull rogerian style rhetoric structure when i'm on these boards with this alias, I just like letting it spew
it's less stressful. I'll save that for my world lit class.
(I love seeing guard do his thing but if I put any thought into structure during my time spent here, I'd considering it wasting my time)

2. i don't come here looking for people to consider me credible, I've grown out of that phase.
Think of me what you will.

[The Lizard]

TF:ROTF is indeed a very divisive movie, I'll admit that.

Even its own cast and crew can't agree on its quality. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html

BTW, I love the part in that article where Michael Bay claims that The Rock was the movie that made Nicholas Cage a "big actor". LOL

[Blackman]

ok, Bay is an idiot for thinking he made all those careers. I mean sure he helped them (which any high grossing movie does), but no he didnt make them
But I will say he did make Megan Fox's career. She did smaller roles before Transformers but she wasnt a mainstream as she is now

About Megan saying the movie isnt about acting
1) this is true
2) she cant act anyways
3) it just comes off real stupid to be talking bad about a movie series that gave you your last 2 huge paychecks. No, its not like she said "F Transformers its a stupid movie" but it comes off to me as stupid to say something bad about your 2 biggest movies that landed you your next 2 roles (Jennifers Body and Jonah Hex) that dont seem like they'll require much acting either.

If I was Bay I would be pissed I'd say "Not to sh** on Megan Fox's career or anything, but we all know her roles aren't about acting"

Shes all shock value anyways

[Marvin]

which ones didn't he make?

[Jake Cassidy]

http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-news-rumors/236275-botcon-2009-movie-q-session.html

Thanks :yay:

[BlackLantern]

TF:ROTF is indeed a very divisive movie, I'll admit that.

Even its own cast and crew can't agree on its quality. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html

BTW, I love the part in that article where Michael Bay claims that The Rock was the movie that made Nicholas Cage a "big actor". LOL

I don't think it made his career, but I do think it opened doors for Cage in the action genre that weren't previously open before....as for Will Smith, its a toss up between Independence Day and Bad Boys....Bad Boys got him noticed, Independence Day and Enemy of the State (one of my favorites, so Im biased towards the film) made him a star

[Anti-Moderator]

Everyone knows that The Fresh Prince of Bel Air made Will Smith the huge star he is today. :grin:

[bell110]

TF:ROTF is indeed a very divisive movie, I'll admit that.

Even its own cast and crew can't agree on its quality. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/us-magazine-megan-fox-bay.html

BTW, I love the part in that article where Michael Bay claims that The Rock was the movie that made Nicholas Cage a "big actor". LOL


LOL, Bay is so nuts. He obviously lives in his own little world. I'm surprised he's no taking credit for launching Sean Connery or Bruce Willis' career as well. And I love his reaction about Fox. It's basically, "Pfff, she's just a stupid little kid".

As for Fox's comments, I don't think she was trying to be insulting. She's basically saying what everybody who defends this movie is saying; it's just supposed to be a big, dumb, fun action movie. She just said it in her own... uhhhh... special way? Anyways, I'll love to go out and have a few beers with her. She says such off the wall things sometimes, I bet she's a barrel of monkeys.

Here's two great links about Michael Bay:

Everyday life directed by Michael Bay:
http://www.cracked.com/article_17527_if-everyday-life-was-directed-by-michael-bay.html

And Michael Bay brings the Great Gatsby to the big screen:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/storyboards-from-michael-bays-the-great-gatsby/
Wasn't Bay saying he wanted to do a serious movie, LOL.

[BlackLantern]

Everyday life directed by Michael Bay:
http://www.cracked.com/article_17527_if-everyday-life-was-directed-by-michael-bay.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_17527_if-everyday-life-was-directed-by-michael-bay.html)

I'm not seeing the bad here

[Godman]

Damn, that was BRILLIANT !!!! I agree with everyting you said 100% !!!!

Thanks. Now don't get me wrong, but Hollywood does still have it's gems that come out once in a while. Star Trek was actually entertaining and all the CG felt needed where it was. I felt they should have had more epic battles, but these days even getting what we got was something. The Dark Knight worked because it had absolutely no gimmicks and was a very engaging script that the director didn't think "summer blockbuster", but "Oscar" and that is how movies should ALL be made. Even E.T. had the depth, emotional complex, humor, and adventure that movies like The Lion King had and will be remembered for. The Lion King one an Oscar almost as the best movie of that year period let alone in the animation category like Wall E. Pixar really take their stories to another level. Honestly now that I have seen a live action transformers that I don't truly take to heart. what if Pixar took a crack at it with the serious yet humorous tone of Wall E and UP. They could pull it off, but honestly I believe the only two directors so far who could have done what BAY lacks in grandeur is Spielberg himself and James Cameron. Ridley Scott is pretty good.